bank_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine provenance context (results are assembled from ReceivedIn receipts, PaidFrom payments, and transfers, with no standalone bank-transaction entity), which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume limits for a potentially large ledger-derived read.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the explanatory note about data assembly. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required, and the provenance note covers the conceptual model well. However, with 0% schema coverage on three parameters and no routing guidance versus siblings, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this confidently in ambiguous cases.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never mentions bank_account_key or its expected form/key type, and never explains from_date/to_date semantics (inclusive? defaults? format), leaving the date-window parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb/resource: money-in/out for a single bank or cash account, and even discloses how the data is assembled (receipts, payments, transfers). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as bank_balances, account_ledger, or ledger_transactions.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite several plausible siblings (bank_balances, account_ledger, ledger_transactions). The second sentence clarifies why no direct transaction entity exists, which explains the tool's design but does not tell the agent when to choose this over those alternatives.

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