list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('account IDs and display names') and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by output details and usage guidance in the second. Both sentences earn their place by adding essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output, and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning authentication needs or error scenarios, which are relevant for a system configuration tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and output, which compensates for the lack of parameters. It does not need to detail parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('List all available Kite accounts'), resource ('configured in the system'), and output ('account IDs and display names'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_holdings' or 'get_profile' by focusing on account enumeration rather than financial data or user details.

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 provides clear context for usage ('to show available accounts to the user'), which implies this tool is for discovery or selection purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_profile' for detailed account information.

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