accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states content ('Every connected account...') without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what exactly is returned (e.g., names, balances), or if any side effects exist. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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, brief sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and the key qualifier ('split by domain') is placed at the end, which is acceptable given its brevity. It could arguably carry more information, but as written it is efficient.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the agent receives when calling this tool. It only says 'Every connected account' without specifying the structure or content of the response (e.g., list of account names, balances). This is a notable gap for a tool that is likely an overview endpoint, leaving the agent to guess the return format.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already conveys (empty properties). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for a parameter-less tool is appropriately high.

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 identifies the resource (connected accounts) and a distinguishing attribute (split by domain), but it lacks a clear verb stating what the tool does (e.g., lists, retrieves, summarizes). This makes the action vague, though it does suggest an overview role compared to the more specific sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many specific siblings like expenses_spend or investments_balances. The description implies it provides a broad account view, but does not explicitly tell the agent when this is preferred over the domain-specific tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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