list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds valuable behavioral context, such as the verbose parameter saving ~90% context, and hints about relevant fields (isPaymentEnabled, isBankAccount).

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 sentences, with the first sentence stating the main purpose and the second providing specific usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters but none required. The description covers common use cases and hints at relevant return fields. While no output schema exists, the description compensates by suggesting specific fields to look for. A minor gap is not mentioning pagination limits beyond the schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance beyond the schema, such as looking for 'isPaymentEnabled/isBankAccount' and explaining the verbose parameter's benefit.

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 the chart of accounts in Billy' with specific use cases 'find account IDs for bill lines, product revenue accounts, and bank accounts for payments'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on this specific resource and its uses.

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 on when to use the tool, such as finding account IDs for specific purposes, and suggests looking for the fields 'isPaymentEnabled/isBankAccount'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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