qb_list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics annotations cannot express: balance is own-account activity while total_balance rolls up subaccounts, and balances are in the account's own currency.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by filter examples and the balance-vs-total_balance caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not restate the return shape, and the one subtlety worth explaining (balance vs total_balance) is covered. The missing piece is any mention of active_only, which matters because it defaults to true and silently excludes inactive accounts.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well for account_type, giving concrete enum-like examples ('Bank', 'Income', 'Expense', 'OtherCurrentAsset'), but never mentions active_only or its default-true behavior, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 (chart of accounts) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. The account_type filter examples further pin down the scope.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'Use this to confirm an account name exists exactly before posting to it', which routes the agent away from balance/transaction tools. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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