list_accounts

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

Even though the readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the exact return structure (list of objects with 'id', 'tags', optional 'mt4AccountID') and the significance of the 'id' field. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise (about 4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. The additional details about the return format and ID usage are directly relevant and not redundant, making every sentence earn 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, simple list return) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, return format, and even a note about MT4 bridging, making it fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema (maximum number of accounts, default 50, minimum 1). With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add much, and it doesn't—the mention of the output format is helpful but not directly about the parameter.

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 the tool lists accounts authorized for the configured API token, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('accounts'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing this is the entry point for account identifiers used by other tools, such as 'get_account' or 'list_account_instruments'.

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 as the first step for any account-related operation by noting the 'id' is the identifier every other tool operates on. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios or state when not to use the tool.

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