m3_chart_of_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature, which is useful, but it does not describe behavior around pagination, ordering, result shape, or any limitations. The basic safety trait is covered, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the operation and resource, with 'Read-only' adding safety context. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only query tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what the tool does and that it is safe, but it does not explain return values, pagination defaults, or the semantics of the order clause, leaving some context to be inferred from the schema.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. It does not clarify how skip, take, or order should be used, and the schema's only description ('GraphQL order clause') is vague. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('chart of accounts (accounting plan)'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools such as m3_accounting_journal or m3_graphql. The 'Read-only' qualifier further clarifies the operation type.

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: this is the tool for querying the chart of accounts and it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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