List all accounts and products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: balances are as of lastSyncDate (not live), and it returns the portalId that other tools need. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the wording ('Lists') implies a non-mutating operation. The given caveat and dependency note add genuine value beyond the tool name.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, examples of products are given in a parenthetical, and the critical caveat about data freshness is included without bloating. Every sentence 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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns (balances, portalId), why it matters (needed by other tools), and the freshness caveat. The 'Start here' guidance sets context for the overall workflow. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly omits any param-related discussion. Baseline 4 applies since there is nothing to clarify.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('every Banco General product on the dashboard'), enumerating the types (savings accounts, credit cards, Pro-Futuro pension). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like bg_get_account by implying a full list, and the phrase 'Start here' positions it as the entry point. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'Start here', which is a clear directive on when to use this tool (as the first call). It also provides a caveat about data freshness ('not live'), which guides expected usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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