List accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation, and the description reinforces that by using 'List.' It adds useful context about including balances and scoping to the current workspace, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like ordering, pagination, or the fallback default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key verb, resource, and scope. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple list tool with one optional documented parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. No critical information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single optional parameter workspace_id is already fully described in the schema, including its default behavior. The description does not need to add parameter details and does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('benefit accounts and balances'), and the scope ('current workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces and list_benefits by specifying accounts and balances rather than workspaces or benefits generally.

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 description makes the basic usage clear for reading benefit accounts in the current workspace, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_benefits or list_transactions. Usage is implied rather than directly stated with alternatives.

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