Bank details ordered

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds relevant context about what is returned (the actual bank detail identifiers and the state of each order, across multiple currencies), but it does not explain what the possible order states are or what happens when no order exists for a currency.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core object (the bank details) is front-loaded. The parenthetical enumeration of identifiers is useful rather than padding, though the sentence is dense enough that the 'state of each order' clause lands late.

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 two-parameter read-only lister with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. However, with no output schema, the burden falls on prose to convey the shape of the response (per-currency order records with states), and the vague 'state of each order' leaves the agent guessing about possible values.

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%, so the profile and currency parameters are already documented, including the WISE_PROFILE_ID default and the list_profiles cross-reference. The description only lightly reinforces this by framing results as covering 'the profile's currencies', hinting that omitting the currency filter returns all — that is marginal added meaning, so the baseline of 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 names the concrete resource — local bank details (account number, sort code, routing number, IBAN) plus each order's state — scoped to the profile's currencies, so an agent can tell this is the read side of account-detail ordering rather than order_account_details or check_bank_details. It is phrased as a noun phrase with no explicit verb ('list'), which slightly weakens the action signal, and it does not name the sibling that creates orders.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of when to call order_account_details instead, and no prerequisite note (e.g., that the profile must already have orders). The closest thing is the implied framing that this reports existing orders, which the agent must infer.

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