list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation and notes that balance types are labelled separately, but it omits permissions, rate limits, pagination, and other operational behavior.

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 the core verb-resource statement front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted text, and the extra clause about balance labels is useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained. However, with no annotations and an undocumented required broker_id, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently determine scope, prerequisites, or parameter meaning.

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 schema has one required parameter, broker_id, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions broker_id or explains its meaning, format, or required status, so it adds no parameter semantics at all.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read accounts'. It also clarifies that synthetic, broker-paper and live balances are labelled separately, which adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling read tools such as list_brokers or get_positions.

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 implies usage by saying 'Read accounts', but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives compared with sibling tools. It also does not state any prerequisites such as needing a broker_id.

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