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. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation ('조회'), relates to login credentials (app key/secret), has no input, and mentions the common endpoint. This implies a read-only behavior without side effects. It does not go into details like rate limits or failure modes, but for a simple list operation it is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded. It states the main function, purpose, and no-input condition in two clear sentences, with a parenthetical note about the endpoint. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description provides all essential context for a simple zero-parameter tool: what it does, why it is used, when to call it, and the endpoint. Although there is no output schema, the description implies the output includes account numbers (act_no) needed for subsequent operations. It could be more explicit about the response structure, but for its simplicity it is sufficiently complete.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states '입력값은 없습니다' (no input value), which adds clarity beyond the schema by confirming that no parameters are accepted. This is helpful for an agent to know it should not supply any arguments.

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 tool retrieves the list of accounts connected to login credentials ('보유 계좌 목록을 조회합니다'), specifies the resource (accounts) and the action (retrieve/list). It also explains the purpose (obtaining account number before balance inquiry or order), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_balance that likely operate on a specific account.

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 states when to use it: 'before balance inquiry/order to secure account number (act_no)'. It also notes there is no input required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest score.

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