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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses that protected system accounts are rename-only, that the tool shows QuickBooks provisioning status, and that the org_id must match the key's org or the request is rejected. This goes beyond the annotation's basic read-only signal.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then lists the returned fields, then gives usage guidance. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and a clear usage directive, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it will get, when to use it, and the one parameter caveat. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the schema already documents org_id well. The description adds value by explaining when to omit org_id and that it defaults to the authenticated key's org, which reinforces the schema's guidance. It doesn't need to add more since there's only one parameter and it's fully documented.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('this org's chart of accounts') and enumerates exactly what fields are returned (code, name, type, P&L rollup bucket, protected status, active status, QuickBooks provisioning status). It also distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools by explicitly saying to use it before add/rename/deactivate.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before add/rename/deactivate to see current codes and statuses,' which tells the agent when to invoke this tool versus the sibling mutation tools. It also clarifies the org_id parameter behavior, saying it normally should be omitted and never needs to be asked from the user.

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