list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the operation is to list accounts, which implies a read-only action, but it does not describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns account IDs, full details, or an array), nor does it mention any prerequisites like a prior connection. Given the absence of annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool that could carry subtle behaviors.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the core action and the target resource efficiently. There is no waste, making it an example of concise, well-structured prose.

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-param tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'list' returns (e.g., a list of account identifiers vs. detailed objects) or whether it requires an active connection. Among the many sibling tools, it does not position itself against get_account or switch_account, leaving the agent to infer scope. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 seems fair—it covers the basic purpose but misses contextual context an agent could use.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate because there are no parameters to document.

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 states the verb 'List' and resource 'trading accounts' clearly. It is distinct from 'get_account' (which implies a single account) and 'switch_account', but it does not explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and specific enough for an agent to understand the basic function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like get_account, switch_account, or list_positions. The description only says 'for the connected broker,' which implies a prerequisite but does not explain when to choose list_accounts over other account-related tools. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context.

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