list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Lista' aligns. The description adds that it covers specific account types, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether all accounts are returned. Beyond the annotation, behavioral context is minimal.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded. The second sentence with 'type:' is somewhat terse but not wasteful. A clearer structure could improve readability.

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 has 0 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose. The mention of account types adds context. However, it lacks information on result ordering, pagination, or if filtering is possible (despite no parameters). Still, for a simple list tool, it is fairly 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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds 'type: cash|bank|card|associate' but this is not a parameter; it may describe output. This does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 lists bank accounts, cards, and associate accounts, which is specific and distinct from get_account (single account). However, the mention of 'type: cash|bank|card|associate' suggests filtering, but the input schema has no parameters, leading to slight confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list tools (list_customers, etc.) are similar, but no differentiation is provided.

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