List Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the main safety profile is covered. The description adds that all accounts in a plan are returned and that IDs are the useful output, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or closed-account handling beyond the schema's includeClosedAccounts field.

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, no filler, with the action and resource stated first and the use case added as a second sentence. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with optional parameters, the description plus fully-covered schema and annotations provide everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No output schema is available, but the stated use case (account IDs) covers the expected return value.

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 the schema fully documents planId, budgetId, and includeClosedAccounts. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the param semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'lists' with a clear resource ('all accounts in a plan'), and immediately states the practical purpose of finding account IDs for creating transactions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ynab_list_payees, ynab_list_categories, and ynab_get_transactions.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: before creating transactions to look up account IDs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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