qt_get_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and 'all' implies no filtering, but it does not disclose authentication/session requirements, rate limits, or whether the response is a flat list. This is acceptable but shallow.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key verb/resource appears first. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter list, the description is a minimum viable summary, but there is no output schema or annotation to clarify what an account object looks like or whether prerequisites exist. More context would improve call confidence.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description's 'all' clarifies no filtering is available or needed, matching the empty schema. Baseline 4 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all Questrade accounts'), and the scope ('all') distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve positions, balances, quotes, orders, etc. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of function.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool or exclusions, but the resource name and sibling list imply it is for retrieving the account list, not positions, balances, or quotes. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance, so a 3.

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