List accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the scope ('all accounts and subaccounts') and output fields, but omits details about the include_hidden parameter, permissions, or side effects. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 description is complete for a simple list operation, but it omits the include_hidden parameter behavior and any potential pagination or filtering context. The presence of the parameter suggests additional nuance that is not addressed.

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 schema description coverage is 0% for the include_hidden parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter name and default value in the schema provide some meaning, but the description fails to clarify when to use it or what 'hidden' refers to.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all accounts and subaccounts'. It specifies the return fields (IDs, balances, hierarchy paths), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tags or get_financial_summary.

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 implies its usage by naming the exact resource and operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_financial_summary or manage_account. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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