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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states scope ('available to the user'); it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, or any ordering/pagination behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing operation.

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 with no parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema and no mention of what fields are returned or how account IDs are used by downstream sibling tools, an agent cannot fully predict how to consume the result.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning or formats. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Monzo accounts') and adds a useful scope qualifier ('available to the user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on balances, transactions, or pots.

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?

There is no explicit or implicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_balance or list_transactions, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. An agent would have to infer that listing accounts is the natural first step before account-scoped calls.

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