List ledger accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful payload context (type derivation source and line counts) that helps the agent judge whether the result is worth fetching. It says nothing about pagination behavior, empty-ledger cases, or ordering, which the schema only partially covers via the 'use nextPage' note on the page parameter.

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, both front-loaded with the payload description first and the practical follow-up second; nothing is padded. Minor deduction: 'account_transactions reports' is an opaque reference — no tool by that name appears in the sibling list, so the phrase costs a little clarity without a resolvable target.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so adequately (type, provenance, line counts). Combined with the schema's pagination documentation and the annotations' safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly. Only the relationship to wave_list_accounts remains unstated.

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?

All three parameters (page, pageSize, businessId) have full schema descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it does not say, for example, how pageSize interacts with the line counts or what the businessId default means in a multi-business context beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific resource (accounts appearing in the imported ledger) plus the returned content: type, type provenance (Wave chart of accounts vs. export labels), and line counts. That is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling wave_list_accounts, leaving the agent to infer the ledger-vs-chart-of-accounts split from the phrase 'imported ledger'.

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 second sentence gives downstream guidance — reuse the returned names or IDs as filters for wave_list_ledger_transactions and account_transactions reports — which is genuine workflow context. However, there is no statement of when to call this tool versus wave_list_accounts, and no prerequisites or exclusions, so call-selection is still implied rather than specified.

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