list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, default sorting, how filters combine (AND/OR), or the response shape. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb-object structure is efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting usage and parameter context that an agent would need, so it is concise but not optimally informative.

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?

With 6 parameters, 33% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The Bigcapital-specific concepts (viewSlug, customViewId, filterRoles) are unexplained, and the agent gets no description of the return value or filtering behavior, making it uncertain how to invoke the tool with the right filters.

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 only 33% (sortBy and searchTerm have descriptions), leaving viewSlug, filterRoles, customViewId, and sortOrder undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'Bigcapital list filters,' which merely labels the mechanism without explaining semantics. sortOrder's enum is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chart-of-account records'), which inherently distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools covering other entities (customers, vendors, invoices) and from the singular get_account. However, the differentiation is implicit via the resource name rather than an explicit contrast, and the phrase 'Bigcapital list filters' is vague about what that entails.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Bigcapital list filters' weakly implies a filtering use case, but the description provides no exclusions, no contrast with get_account for single-record lookups, and no indication that this is the multi-record counterpart to that tool.

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