list_pending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a definition of "pending"; it says nothing about result volume, ordering, pagination behavior, or whether pending items are cached/eventually consistent — which matters for a live-finance 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, front-loaded with the resource definition and zero filler. It is tight and readable, though the second sentence jumps to parameter detail without first establishing scope or alternatives.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only list tool, and the definition covers the core semantic (what "pending" means) plus the one non-obvious parameter behavior. Missing: differentiation from list_transactions, and any hint about limit/offset/account_id semantics, which leaves gaps despite the low complexity.

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 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially discharges it: it explains that `bank` is a nickname and that omitting it means all banks. The limit, offset, and account_id parameters get no explanation at all, and `bank` vs `account_id` — the one distinction most likely to confuse an agent — is never clarified.

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 names the resource precisely and defines the key term inline ("Pending (not yet settled) transactions"), so an agent knows it returns unsettled transactions rather than settled history. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_transactions, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_transactions or get_balance, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-like sentence ("omit it for all banks") is a parameter hint rather than a selection rule.

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