list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a short-lived cache, meaning data may be stale, and instructs to call refresh for live numbers, which is a behavioral trait not inferable from the name alone. It also lists the return fields.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and return fields before explaining the caching behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler words.

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 (0 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it returns (id, name, broker, currency, equity, cash when reported), the caching behavior, and the alternative for live data. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents them (vacuously) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level information, but none is needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all connected accounts across every configured broker') along with the exact fields returned. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_brokers, which would list brokers not accounts.

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 explicitly directs the agent to call refresh for live numbers, providing an alternative for the specific condition of needing up-to-date data. This is a clear when-to-use alternative, matching the high-quality pattern of naming the alternative and the condition.

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