List chart of accounts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by stating the return fields (account numbers, names, types) and the operational requirement that postings must reference accounts from this list. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail pagination or edge cases.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and object. Every sentence provides value: the first defines what it does, the second explains why and when to use it. No redundant or filler content.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return fields (account numbers, names, types) and providing a clear use case. It doesn't explain the exact response structure or how pagination works, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers the essentials for a read-only search 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 100%, so the parameters (limit, query, tenantId, accountNumberPrefix) are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add specific parameter-level meaning but aligns with the search intent. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tenant's chart of accounts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like reai_list_vat_codes and reai_list_postings by mentioning the return of account numbers, names, and types, and by tying it to voucher bookings.

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 says when to use the tool ('Use this to find the right account number before booking a voucher') and gives a compelling rationale ('every posting must reference an account that exists in this list'). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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