List chart of accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that returned accounts carry current balances, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, how archived accounts are handled, or what the focused default (isArchived false, detail=summary) implies for output volume.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the filter recipes, and no filler. The semicolon-separated recipe list is dense but each clause corresponds to a distinct lookup the agent may need.

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 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual core (what the list contains, how to filter for the common cases) while the schema documents the plumbing (page/pageSize/nextPage, detail, search, isArchived). Minor residual gap: the description never mentions paging or the summary-vs-full output distinction, which matters for a paginated read.

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 documents parameters at roughly 67% coverage, listing enum values without explaining what they mean in business terms. The description bridges that gap by mapping real-world concepts (bank account, credit card, expense category, income category) onto specific types/subtypes combinations, which is meaning the enum list alone cannot convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — "List the chart of accounts with current balances" — so the agent knows exactly what is returned (account records plus balances). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as wave_get_account or wave_list_ledger_accounts, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Strong practical guidance via concrete filter recipes: bank accounts are types=[ASSET] subtypes=[CASH_AND_BANK], credit cards subtypes=[CREDIT_CARD], expense types=[EXPENSE], income types=[INCOME]. This tells the agent how to accomplish common lookups, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to alternative tools for account lookup.

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