get_gl_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it retrieves 'all' GL accounts and defaults to today's date if no date is provided, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, return format, or other behavioral nuances. Given the read-only nature, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by usage and default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant detail.

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 only 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, and default date behavior. It does not explain return values, but that is not required since there is no output schema. It could mention sibling alternatives for full completeness, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the date parameter's default behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since both parameters are well-documented in the schema, the description adds marginal value.

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 retrieves all GL accounts with their balance at a given date, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides examples of use cases (finding account codes, financial snapshot). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_gl_accounts_fiscal, 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?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to find account codes... or get a financial snapshot.' It also notes the default behavior for date. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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