List accounts and balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'Fast', 'balances-only mode', and 'no transactions'. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, read-only nature, or possible pagination, though for a simple list tool this is a moderate 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides distinct value: the first states what it does, the second adds scope and performance. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core output (accounts and balances), the exclusion (transactions), and a performance trait. It could specify the exact return structure or ordering, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, as there is no missing semantics to compensate for.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('accounts') with clear scope ('all connected accounts with current balances'). It also explicitly excludes transactions, which differentiates it from the sibling tool get_transactions.

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 the tool: for account balances, not transactions. The phrase 'no transactions' serves as an exclusion, and the 'balances-only mode' hints at the lightweight use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_transactions.

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