paper_account_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it constrains the data domain to local simulation accounts (not broker) and discloses that equity is included in the response, which annotations do not convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the returned field, and the scope exclusion with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back (accounts plus current equity) and what it will not get (broker accounts). A minor gap: it does not say how equity is valued (e.g., whether paper_mark_prices must be called first) or whether an empty list is possible.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema needing description-side compensation. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and takes no arguments.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus specific resource ('local simulation accounts and current equity'), and the trailing clause scopes it away from broker account discovery. It does not name the nearest sibling (paper_account_get) for single-account detail, so the differentiation is scope-based rather than explicit.

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 'no broker account discovery' clause is an implicit when-not, telling the agent this is for local/simulated accounts only. There is no explicit 'use paper_account_get when you need one account's details' routing or any precondition, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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