list_standing_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully surfaces a provider-type constraint (Open Banking only) and the "List" verb implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether results are cached vs. fetched live, or result volume/pagination behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the constraint attached immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and three parameters at 0% schema coverage leave the definition materially incomplete. The unexplained "fresh" parameter and the absence of any return-shape or safety context mean an agent cannot call this confidently without guessing.

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. The description implies account_id through the phrase "on an account," but the non-obvious "fresh" flag and optional provider_id are never explained — notably whether "fresh" forces a live refresh rather than a cached response. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("List standing orders") scoped to an account, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_direct_debits and list_cards by resource alone. The parenthetical adds a real provider restriction ("Open Banking providers only"), though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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: use this to retrieve standing orders for a given account, and only for Open Banking providers. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor any pointer to an alternative tool if the provider is not Open Banking-enabled — the agent must infer what to do in that case.

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