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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context with 'not metered' and the caveat that register activity fields appear only where admitted statements report. Minor gap: no indication of result volume or ordering for a workspace that may hold many endpoints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the domain definitions, then the sibling redirect. Every sentence carries information, though the dense jargon ('statement-backed instruments', 'explicit unidentified endpoints') and the owner/fiduciary aside make it slower to parse than it needs to be.

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 need not be spelled out, and the description instead supplies the domain model needed to interpret results (owner vs fiduciary, register activity presence). It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only ordering/volume expectations are absent.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains workspace_tag as the active workspace id returned by create_workspace/list_workspaces. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but no more than baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Lists every live account endpoint in a workspace') and enumerates the exact kinds returned: statement-backed instruments, owned or external counterparties, and unidentified endpoints. It explicitly differentiates from the near-named sibling list_chart_accounts by assigning chart bookkeeping categories and balances there.

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?

States a clear selection rule — an account needs no register to appear — and routes the chart-categories case to list_chart_accounts. It does not address the obvious sibling list_workspace_account_activity or explain when to prefer activity listings over the endpoint list, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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