Get Bank Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'List' phrasing is consistent with these hints but adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or what 'connected to the company' excludes.

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 short sentence with zero filler. The action, resource, and scope are all front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that the return shape is undocumented and there is no output schema, but this is minor for a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema), so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. Per baseline for 0-parameter tools, this dimension defaults to 4.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('bank accounts') with a scope qualifier ('connected to the company'). It is clear and distinct from siblings like find_duplicate_bank_accounts, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_duplicate_bank_accounts, get_transactions, or get_balance. There is no indication of what problem this tool solves that siblings do not, so an agent must infer the usage context.

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