Get Account Info

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 the scoping detail 'configured broker credentials can see', which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential limitations, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single sentence that is directly to the point, using no redundant words. It front-loads the action and scopes the resource efficiently, earning maximum conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does and its scope. A minor omission is the lack of detail about what 'account info' includes (e.g., balances, IDs), but this is not critical for a list-all tool.

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 input schema is empty and the description appropriately omits parameter details. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, as there is nothing to explain.

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 'lists' and clearly identifies the resource ('every account the configured broker credentials can see'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific data types like positions or orders, making its purpose 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?

The description implies usage when needing a list of available accounts, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. With numerous sibling tools, more explicit guidance would improve clarity, but the simple scope makes the context reasonably clear.

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