getAccounts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant context: only BROKERAGE accounts are returned, child accounts are excluded, and the accountType enum meaning is referenced. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points, each sentence adds value. It is concise yet informative, covering purpose, limitations, and usage context without redundancy.

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?

While the description explains the important accountSeq field and references the enum schema, it does not fully describe the response structure. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on response fields would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description effectively addresses the tool's usage without mentioning parameters.

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 a list of accounts, specifically noting it currently returns only BROKERAGE accounts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on account listing, which is a prerequisite for other account-related APIs.

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 explains when to use (to get account list) and provides context that accountSeq is used in other APIs, implying this tool should be called first. It notes limitations (only BROKERAGE, no child accounts). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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