List Monarch accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that compact output always includes account IDs, balances, institutions, and freshness. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent know what the default response contains.

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, both high-value. The first sentence lists scope, the second clarifies output invariants. No filler, front-loaded with the resource name and types.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and a full output schema provided, the description covers the essential behavioral promise. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional clarification.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'detail', which has an enum and a description explaining compact vs full. The tool description mentions 'Compact output' which aligns with the parameter default but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Monarch accounts'), enumerates the account types covered (bank, credit, investment, loan, manual), and notes the compact output includes key fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_holdings or get_institutions.

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 when to use this tool: to get a list of all accounts with balances and institutions. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear given the sibling list. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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