Get accounts for an Item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly disclose whether the call is non-mutating, what prerequisites exist beyond item_id, or any rate limit or error behavior. This is thin behavioral coverage for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 no filler: the endpoint is front-loaded and the return fields are listed compactly. Every word provides useful information.

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 (one parameter, fully documented in the schema) and the description lists the returned fields, which is helpful. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits explicit read-only guarantees, error behavior, and any guidance on choosing this over related Plaid siblings, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for item_id, noting it can come from plaid_sandbox_item_create or be a raw access_token. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

Clearly identifies the endpoint /accounts/get and the resource (accounts), and enumerates the returned fields (ids, names, types, subtypes, masks, balances). However, it does not call out how this differs from sibling tools like plaid_balance_get or plaid_identity_get, so the agent must infer distinctions from the name and schema.

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 when to use the tool by listing account metadata and balances, but it never explicitly compares with alternatives such as plaid_balance_get, plaid_auth_get, or plaid_transactions_sync, and offers no exclusion criteria. It is enough to suggest a use case but not to route the agent away from similar tools.

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