sigmavue_accounts_list

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

With no annotations, description explains token-based scoping, optional filter, and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, nor describe pagination behavior (e.g., defaults, total count). Adequate but not complete.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, front-loaded with action and scope. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers core functionality, scoping, one filter, and pagination. Output schema exists for return values. Minor omission: no mention of ordering or default pagination behavior. Very good for a simple 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'is_active filter' and 'pagination' which adds meaning, but does not fully describe each parameter individually (e.g., page_size max). Acceptable but leaves gaps.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'every broker account' scoped to token. Clearly distinct from sibling tools which deal with clients, journals, portfolio, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Implicit from resource name but no exclusions or when-not-to-use provided. Sibling tools are different, but description lacks context for selection.

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