account

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description only lists operations without elaborating on behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects of 'archive' (which might be destructive despite the annotation). The description adds little beyond the annotations and operation list.

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 well-structured with clear sections for operations and arguments. It is reasonably concise given the parameter count (8), though some sentences could be tighter. No filler content.

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 complexity (8 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters, return format, and key behavioral notes (e.g., client-side search, required account_id). It omits details on output schema structure but that is acceptable as an output schema is present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: operation enum list, account_id format and usage, data dict with key fields and types, query behavior, filters, and pagination. This provides excellent guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 it's for 'Chart of Accounts management in Wave' and lists specific operations (list, get, search, create, update, archive), providing a clear sense of purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'item', 'party', etc., leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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 explains the operations and their required parameters (e.g., account_id for get/update/archive, query for search). It implies when to use each operation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor provide when-not or alternative suggestions.

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