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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the field-level output shape and the underlying API method name, but says nothing about pagination limits, what an empty chart looks like, or latency/scope caveats beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the cross-reference. The trailing API method token (AccountingInfo.GetGLAccountScheme) is developer metadata that adds little for an agent, keeping it just below a 5.

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 simple read-only list tool with three fully documented optional params and no output schema, the description supplies the returned field list and the sibling relationship, which is what an agent needs. Missing only pagination behavior notes, which the schema largely covers.

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% — limit, offset, and administration_id are each documented with defaults and the next_offset continuation pattern. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema is doing all the work.

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 specific resource (general ledger accounts / chart of accounts), scopes it to an administration, and enumerates the returned fields (code, description, type). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling balance/transaction tools. The retrieval verb is only implicit, but the resource and output shape are unambiguous.

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?

"Use the codes in yuki_list_gl_account_transactions" gives a genuine relational hint about downstream use and implicitly signals this is the lookup step before transaction work. However, it never states when to call this versus yuki_get_gl_account_balance or when *not* to bother, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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