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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the response includes current balances and that amounts are in the account currency, plus the household scope, which helps an agent anticipate the tool's output.

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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, immediately conveys scope and included data, and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With 2 simple params and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the primary behavior and key return content (balances with currency). Minor gaps like default status filtering or response shape are already inferable from the schema and tool name, so the description is near-complete for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the household scope but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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 states a specific action (list), resource (all financial accounts), and scope (in the household), with concrete examples of account types. It clearly differentiates itself from the singular get_account sibling by emphasizing 'list all' and the plural resource.

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 implies usage for retrieving all accounts but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_account or other list tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name and phrasing.

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