get_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 explicitly states 'This tool never changes accounts,' which is a strong behavioral disclosure for a read operation. However, it does not mention return format, authentication needs, or other behavioral details, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is a reasonable and valuable disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. 'This tool never changes accounts' is a useful safety statement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it can optionally include, and that it is non-mutating. It doesn't detail the return structure, but 'List' implies an array/list of accounts. For a tool of this complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 description mentions 'optionally, their positions,' which alludes to the 'include_positions' parameter, but it does not explicitly connect the parameter name or describe the effect of setting it true/false. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by linking the optional positions feature, but it lacks precise parameter semantics.

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 tool's action: 'List linked Schwab accounts and, optionally, their positions.' This is a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('linked Schwab accounts'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_account' by using plural 'accounts', but does not explicitly name the alternative, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account' or 'get_transactions'. It implies usage by stating its purpose, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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