get_accounts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('List of account information objects') and indicates a read-only operation via 'Retrieve'. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or whether a connection must be active.

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, directly stating the action and return format without any fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention prerequisites or relationship to other tools, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 100% by default. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information; there is no gap to compensate.

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 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'all available trading accounts', clearly stating the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on ordering, querying positions, and connection management.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention prerequisites like login/connection. Usage is implied by the purpose—retrieving accounts—but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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