Get Bank Balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious fact — that the data originates from a Wint import — but says nothing about freshness, why openWorld applies, or what the 'bookkeeping done until' date signifies (period close? lock date?).

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 no filler, and the primary subject (balances) is front-loaded. The trailing clause 'and the date bookkeeping is done until' is grammatically broken and slightly muddies rather than sharpens the focus.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a tool whose description is the only prose, the ambiguous fragment about a bookkeeping date leaves an agent unsure whether this returns a balance list, a single date, or both.

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% and the single 'company' parameter is documented as optional when only one company exists, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about scoping by company or what happens when several companies exist, so the baseline 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 a specific resource (bank account balances imported by Wint) plus an auxiliary datum (the bookkeeping cutoff date), so the agent can tell it is a read of bank balance data rather than transactions or invoices. However it is a noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from close siblings like get_accounts or get_financial_report, which an agent must guess between.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_accounts, get_financial_report, or get_transactions, and no prerequisites (e.g. that Wint must be connected via connect_wint). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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