List Accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the scoping observation that it lists ALL accounts for a bank connection, which is mildly useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose anything further such as pagination, errors for invalid connections, or data freshness.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence is slightly redundant since the schema already requires the parameter, but the description remains appropriately sized and free of waste.

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?

The tool is simple, with one well-documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, but a critical piece of context is missing: how this tool differs from the sibling get_connection_accounts. With no output schema, some indication of what the response contains would also help. The description leaves the agent to guess which of the two account-listing tools to call.

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 the schema already documents userInstitutionId. The instruction 'Provide the UserInstitution ID' merely restates the schema's required parameter and adds no meaning about ID format, where to obtain it, or its relationship to a connection.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all accounts for a bank connection'), clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the nearly identical sibling get_connection_accounts, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite get_connection_accounts sounding like the same operation, the description does not explain the distinction or provide any usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites for selecting this tool.

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