beel_list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: newest-first ordering, cursor-based paging that omits the standard pagination block, the named key inside `data`, and the loop-until-next_cursor-is-null contract.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses tight bullets for filters and a short pagination paragraph. Slightly redundant because the status/external_ref bullets duplicate what the schema already says, but nothing is padding and the pagination note is high-value.

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 return-shape burden and does so: it names the per-account fields (lifecycle status, access_level, claim-link state), the ordering, the envelope key, and the cursor contract. An agent has everything needed to call and page it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter's schema description already explains limit range, cursor origin, status filtering and external_ref lookup, so the baseline is 3. The description's bullets largely restate the schema (status narrows the stage; external_ref returns 0..1) rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 verb+resource ('Returns the accounts you provisioned, newest first') and scopes it to the caller's own provisioned accounts. Distinguishes it from siblings like beel_list_companies, beel_list_customers and beel_get_account without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explains the two filter modes clearly (status narrows to one lifecycle stage; external_ref does a 0..1 lookup by assigned reference) and gives explicit pagination-following instructions. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use the list (e.g. single-account retrieval via beel_get_account), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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