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 and does well by disclosing that closed accounts are excluded, zero-balance accounts are shown by default, and grouping by type. It omits authentication requirements and error handling, but covers core behavioral traits.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, grouping, default behavior, and filtering option. No extraneous words, well-organized.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers key behaviors (grouping, closed account exclusion, zero-balance handling, filtering). Missing authentication or error context, but sufficient for a list tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the purpose of both parameters: type_filter narrows to a category with enum values mapped to account groupings, and hide_zero_balance controls whether zero-balance accounts are hidden. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare enum and default.

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 'List all Personal Capital / Empower accounts with current balances', specifying the verb (list), resource (accounts), and scope (all, with balances). It differentiates from siblings by detailing grouping by type and behaviors like excluding closed accounts.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to list accounts) and mentions the type_filter for narrowing categories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternative tools; sibling tools like get_net_worth or get_transactions imply different use cases.

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