suggest_account

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

The description explains output behavior (most used first, empty for no history) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and this omission is a minor 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and output behavior without unnecessary elaboration.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and edge cases. Nothing essential is missing.

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 parameter 'supplier' is described as 'partner name, or the partner id as a number or a digit string', adding meaningful detail beyond the schema's type definition. This clarifies exactly what values are acceptable and how to provide them.

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 function: suggesting expense accounts based on a supplier's historical bills, ordered by frequency. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_accounts by being supplier-specific and from add_purchase_invoice by being a pre-step.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool before add_purchase_invoice to ensure recurring suppliers land on the same account, avoiding guesses. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies an alternative (guessing) that this tool replaces.

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