List connected brokerage accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, states that the server cannot trade, and reveals the cache behavior. This goes beyond the bare schema and gives the agent realistic expectations about data freshness.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: the first states scope and return content, the second warns about caching and routes to broker_refresh, and the third reinforces safety. No filler or repetition.

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 parameterless list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the caching caveat, the live alternative, and the safety restriction. An agent has everything necessary to select and call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The field list adds useful context about what the response contains, which is the relevant semantic information here.

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 and resource: listing all connected accounts across every configured broker, and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, broker, currency, total equity, cash). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover positions, trades, stats, or refresh operations.

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 explicitly tells the agent that it uses a short-lived cache and points to broker_refresh when live numbers are needed. It clearly frames when this tool is appropriate, though it does not exhaustively discuss all sibling alternatives or exclusions.

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