get_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the returned data (field list) and is implicitly read-only via 'List', but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, ordering, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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 core purpose and the returned-field list are front-loaded in the first sentence, with filtering and examples following. Efficient, though the enumerated field list and three examples make it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and giving concrete usage examples. For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the return ordering/pagination behavior is unstated.

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% and the single optional 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or ID). The description only restates this with 'Can filter for a specific account', adding no format or matching-semantics detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List all linked trading accounts in TradeZylo', followed by an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (name, broker, balance, PnL, win rate, etc.). An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only listing of accounts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_active_account or get_account_comparison, which keeps it from a 5.

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 three example questions give clear context for when to reach for this tool (listing accounts and balances, viewing configured accounts). However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g., get_active_account, get_account_comparison, switch_account) to prefer for adjacent needs.

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