Child accounts

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the output structure, explicitly excludes balances, and explains the apiPointBalance quota behavior including the Monday refill time. This is highly transparent and helps the agent pace calls.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and entry structure, explicit exclusion with alternative, and operational quota details. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately distinguishes from the sibling, with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, what is not included, the alternative tool, and important quota semantics. For a simple list operation, this is comprehensively complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that it operates on the 'configured agency account', making the implicit context explicit. It also notes that the call returns everything with no filtering, which further contextualizes that no parameters are needed.

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 clearly states the tool 'Lists the child (sub-)accounts of the configured agency account' and specifies the entry structure. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly saying 'Balances are NOT included — use list_child_accounts_with_balances for those.'

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: if balances are needed, use list_child_accounts_with_balances. It also sets expectations by noting there is no paging, filter, or search, implying this tool is for full-list retrieval only.

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