List accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope (balances included) but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether unused accounts are returned — behavior the annotations do not cover.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key domain term (kontoplan) and the balance fields front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is a noun phrase rather than a statement of action, which slightly weakens the front-loading of intent.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what the result set represents, and the schema carries parameter details. It lacks any indication of which fields each account row returns or how the balance columns are structured, which would matter for downstream use.

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 both parameters (only_used with its default-true behavior and financial_year defaulting to the current year) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only obliquely references the financial-year scoping and never mentions the only_used filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (chart of accounts / kontoplan) and specifies the scope (a financial year) plus the data it carries (opening and closing balances), which goes beyond the bare name. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like account_totals_by_month or balance_sheet, and it omits an explicit verb, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a financial_year id from list_financial_years), and no routing to alternatives such as account_totals_by_month despite many overlapping accounting siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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