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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the returned fields (ids, names, accounting code, IRD line) and steering account creation elsewhere, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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-loads the core purpose in the first clause and follows with concrete usage detail. It is slightly long, but each sentence (return fields, matching heuristic, creation path) 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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values, and it also explains when to call the tool and how to handle ambiguous matches. For a low-complexity, single-parameter list tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 the single organisation_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (expense accounts), then clarifies what they are (categories expenses are filed under) and what each row contains (ids, names, accounting code, IRD return line). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like create_expense_account or update_expense_account.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: every new expense needs an account, so match the person's description to an active account's name or IRD line and ask for clarification when ambiguous. It also implies when-not-to-use (new accounts are added in the taxapp app), though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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