View Chart of 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 says 'Show' (implying read-only), but provides no detail about return format, whether all accounts are listed by default, or any limitations. The existence of a type_filter parameter is not mentioned, which is a notable omission.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Show the chart of accounts') and followed by meaningful context. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but the description omits any mention of the filtering capability offered by type_filter. It also does not describe what the output looks like (though there is no output schema). The contextual information about CRA tax lines is useful, but the missing parameter context makes it incomplete for the agent to use effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It fails to mention the type_filter parameter at all. The parameter's enum values are not explained in the description, though the schema itself provides them. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 function: 'Show the chart of accounts used for bookkeeping.' It also adds context about mapping transactions to CRA tax lines, which distinguishes it from generic financial views. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like financial_summary, so not a perfect 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'Show the chart of accounts' but does not explain in what scenarios this would be the appropriate tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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