bank_accounts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context beyond that: it specifies returned fields (IBAN, bank name, currency, default per currency) and business meaning ('appear on invoices as payment instructions'), which helps the agent understand the data's role.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return fields and business context. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list with one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete: it clarifies scope, returned fields, and domain relevance. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Company UUID override (uses active company if not set)'), so the schema carries the detail. The description's phrase 'active company' reinforces the default but adds no new syntax or format information.

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 all bank accounts') with clear scope: configured for the active company. An agent can immediately distinguish it from bank_accounts_create, update, and delete without needing the schema.

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 'List all bank accounts configured for the active company', but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus bank_accounts_create/update/delete or mention any exclusions. Adequate but not directive.

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