pennylane_list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the operation supports filters and pagination, which is useful context, but it does not disclose anything further about permissions, rate limits, or what filtering defaults (e.g., enabled_only) mean behaviorally. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The tool's core function is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides immediately useful prefix examples without sprawling into unrelated detail.

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 read-only list tool with 5 fully documented parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. It does not explicitly mention when to choose pennylane_get_account instead, but the gap is minor given the schema and annotations already carry the rest of the load.

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%, and the description's prefix examples largely repeat what is already in the number_prefix parameter description (e.g., '411' clients, '401' fournisseurs, '512' banque). It adds only the extra examples '6=charges, 7=produits', so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('comptes du plan comptable') and scopes it with 'filtres et pagination'. The singular counterparts in the sibling list (pennylane_get_account, pennylane_create_account, pennylane_update_account) are implicitly distinguished by the plural list verb, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete usage contexts: consulting the chart of accounts and searching by account-number prefix, with real examples (411=clients, 401=fournisseurs, 512=banque). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as pennylane_get_account for a single account or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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