monobank-personal-accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds meaningful context by specifying token scoping, the distinction between accounts and jars, and field meanings such as 'goal (0 if no target set).' This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences plus a compact field list; the opening sentence front-loads purpose and usage. No filler or redundancy.

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, parameterless, read-only list tool, the description covers what it returns (accounts and jars), how to use the results (accountId for statement), and field details. No output schema exists, but the inline field breakdown fills that gap.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description instead documents the output fields, which is the relevant semantics for this parameterless read tool.

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?

Description opens with 'Returns a compact list of all Monobank accounts and jars linked to this token,' a specific verb+resource statement. The follow-up 'Use this to discover accountId values before calling monobank-personal-statement' distinguishes it from sibling tools by tying it to the statement workflow.

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?

Description explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this to discover accountId values before calling monobank-personal-statement,' naming the dependent sibling. It does not spell out exclusions or contrast with client-info/currency tools, so it falls short of a full when-not-to-use map.

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