List Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., caching, TTL, or result completeness), but this is acceptable given the simple list operation and strong annotation coverage. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately states the tool's core function. Despite being minimal, it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list operation and holds no redundant phrases.

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 low complexity (three optional parameters, no output schema) and the strong schema/annotation coverage, the description is mostly complete for a simple list tool. It describes the primary purpose accurately, and the schema covers default values and refresh behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention that closed accounts are excluded by default, which is a meaningful contextual detail, but not critical for the agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since each parameter is well-documented. The description's generic 'list' framing does not enhance or deviate from schema semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('accounts for a YNAB plan'), which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_categories or list_transactions. However, it does not explicitly mention optional behaviors like including closed accounts, which the schema describes, so it slightly underestimates the tool's full purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, related tools, or scenarios where another tool would be better suited. This leaves the agent without behavioral context for tool selection.

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