bank_accounts_list

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions key return data (IBAN, bank name, currency, default account per currency) which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose read-only behavior explicitly, potential pagination/limits, or whether it can return empty results. The companyId override behavior is mentioned in the schema though, not fully explained in description.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds practical context about invoice usage and return data. No wasted words, though it could arguably merge the return-value hint more efficiently.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, scope, key return fields, and downstream usage context (payment instructions on invoices). The lack of output schema shifts some burden to the description, which it partially addresses by listing return fields. It lacks explicit read-only safety disclosure, but that's a minor gap for a list operation.

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 100% — the single optional companyId parameter is documented in the schema as 'Company UUID override (uses active company if not set).' The description mentions 'active company' which aligns with the schema. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema already explains, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear purpose: 'List all bank accounts configured for the active company.' It specifies the resource (bank accounts) and the verb (list), and distinguishes from siblings like bank_accounts_create, bank_accounts_update, and bank_accounts_delete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from any other 'list' sibling but the resource scoping is clear.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to retrieve configured bank accounts) and notes that 'bank accounts appear on invoices as payment instructions,' providing some functional context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use bank_accounts_create to add, bank_accounts_update to modify).

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