List financial accounts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds meaningful selection context by explaining the returned ids' role as `financial_account_id` in other entities, and indicates the per-administration scoping of the account list. This goes beyond what the annotations convey without contradicting them.

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 one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (list accounts) and immediately provides the most decision-relevant detail (what the ids are used for). Every clause earns its place.

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 description is complete for a simple, read-only, single-parameter listing tool with rich annotations. It could have named the likely sibling list_ledger_accounts for disambiguation, but the description's scoping is tight enough that an agent is unlikely to confuse the two. No output schema exists, but the tool's output is inherently simple and discoverable.

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 documentation covers the single parameter 100% with a clear description of the administration_id and a pointer to list_administrations. The description itself does not add parameter details, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('bank and payment provider accounts of the administration'), and adds the key linkage that the returned ids are referenced as `financial_account_id` by financial mutations and statements. It fully distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_ledger_accounts and list_financial_mutations.

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 states what the tool lists and the context of use (accounts referenced by financial mutations/statements). It gives no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the strong scope statement plus the exception-free sibling set makes correct selection likely without further guidance.

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