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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: 'Not paged' — the agent knows the full set comes back in one response and needn't loop for pages. It stops short of noting response size or whether archived accounts appear (that lives only in the schema).

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?

Three terse fragments, each earning its place: what it returns, how it behaves (not paged), and how to use the ids. Load-bearing information is front-loaded with no filler.

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 no output schema, the field enumeration plus the 'Not paged' note covers what the agent needs to consume the result correctly. The main remaining gap is that archived-vs-active filtering is only discoverable through the schema parameter, not the description.

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 there is a single optional parameter (include_archive) whose schema description already explains the archived-record semantics. The description says nothing about that parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 enumerates the returned fields (id, number, name, category, currency, balance), making the scope concrete. It also gives the underlying endpoint GET /accounts. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling jurnal_get_account (single-account fetch), though the field list implies a bulk listing.

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 clear downstream usage rule: 'Use the ids as account_id in jurnal_get_general_ledger,' which tells the agent when to reach for this tool as a lookup step. It doesn't state when NOT to use it versus jurnal_get_account or other list endpoints, but the context is clear enough for confident selection.

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