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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious FY-scoping trait (codes repeat across years), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination limits (max 200), or return shape.

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?

Roughly one sentence with the purpose front-loaded, but the double-backtick markup is sloppy and the '(CompanyMember)' parenthetical adds confusion rather than information.

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 4-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits pagination behavior, result ordering, and any indication of what a chart entry looks like. The FY-scope note is the only substantive addition.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description explains fiscal_year's semantics well, but limit, offset, and company_id are entirely undocumented anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource (chart of accounts) and the verb (list), but the parenthetical '(CompanyMember)' is opaque internal jargon and the phrase 'postable chart' is ambiguous. It does not distinguish this list tool from siblings like get_gl_account_ledger or list_gl_open_items.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for using the fiscal_year parameter ('filters to one year's chart'), which implies when the filter matters, but offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over allied tools such as get_gl_account_ledger or gl_trial_balance.

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