refresh_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it refreshes an account list, without saying whether it overwrites local data, requires a valid token, performs a network call, or is safe to invoke repeatedly. This is a noticeable gap for a tool that likely synchronizes external account state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the important verb and resource appear at the start.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description covers the core purpose and precondition. However, it leaves unspecified the actual effect on existing account data and does not clarify how this differs from 'list_accounts' in practice, so completeness is adequate but not rich.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'platform', and it has an enum that constrains valid values. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds the key semantic that the platform must already be connected. This is minimally sufficient, though it does not explain each enum value semantically beyond their literal names.

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 uses a specific verb ('refresca') and a clear resource ('la lista de cuentas'), and it adds a platform-scoping condition ('ya conectada'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'list_accounts', which could be confused with listing versus refreshing, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 phrase 'ya conectada' implies the tool should be used only after a connection has already been established, which gives some usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives, such as when to use 'list_accounts' instead, nor does it state any exclusion criteria.

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