List Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful context about default filtering and including hidden accounts. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or any prerequisites beyond the parameter, leaving some 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second explains the optional parameter. No filler or redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 (2 params, 1 required, no output schema) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers purpose and behavior. It explains the default selection behavior and how to include hidden accounts. It could mention return format or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it rephrases includeAll ('show hidden accounts too') and gives context that the tool operates on a bank connection. This adds little beyond the schema.

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 accounts for a bank connection, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions default behavior and the includeAll option. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool get_connection_accounts, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 provides implicit usage context by explaining the default selected-account view and the includeAll option. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_connection_accounts or when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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