list_bank_accounts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently explains that each item is enriched with derived fields (pais_conta, id_banco) and how they are computed, including edge cases (None when underlying data is empty). It does not mention read-only nature or side effects, but as a listing tool, this is acceptable.

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 very concise: one sentence for main purpose, then explanation of derived fields and their relevance. No unnecessary words. Information is organized clearly.

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?

With output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers derived fields and their purpose, and mentions data completeness issues. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but schema parameters cover that. Slight gap on filtering capabilities, but overall complete for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (sort, fields, page_size, page_number). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not mention that fields can include derived fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the work.

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 clearly states the tool lists company bank accounts with fields like name, IBAN, SWIFT, type. It specifies the resource (bank accounts) and verb (list), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_bank_account by implying this tool returns multiple accounts.

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 provides context about derived fields being used for Portuguese reports (Modelo 30, IES), guiding when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings, but the sibling list includes get_bank_account, which implies for a single account use that instead. The data completeness note also helps manage expectations.

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