bexio Bank Accounts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making safety clear. The description adds that it is 'Read-only' (redundant) and describes the two actions, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or whether results are paginated beyond the schema's limit/offset. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (2 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the read operation and fields, the second clarifies actions and parameter roles. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the fields returned (name, owner, IBAN, etc.) and specifies the two actions with required parameters. For a read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description reiterates the action enum and adds minor context ('optional limit/offset', 'numeric id'), but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Read bank accounts configured in bexio' and lists specific fields (name, owner, IBAN, etc.). It explicitly defines the two actions 'list' and 'get' with parameter roles, effectively distinguishing this tool from siblings like bexio_accounting or bexio_banking_payments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('read bank accounts'), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., bexio_accounting, bexio_banking_payments). There are no when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from the 34 sibling tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.