Investments List Investment Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description itself adds no behavioral detail beyond 'list', such as pagination, scoping, ordering, or how investment accounts relate to holdings.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, making it very concise and front-loaded. It is not poorly organized, though its brevity leaves explanatory gaps captured by other dimensions.

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-required-parameter list operation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is serviceable. However, with no output schema and several closely related sibling tools, it does not clarify what an investment account is or how its result relates to holdings and portfolio tools.

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 100%, and both parameters (fields and output_mode) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('investment accounts'), so an agent knows what operation this is. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like investments_list_holdings or accounts_list_accounts, but the resource phrase is distinct enough to convey the tool's purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as investments_list_holdings, accounts_list_accounts, or investments_get_portfolio. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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