get_accounts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that summary totals apply only to the filtered subset, that hidden accounts are excluded by default, and that both account_type and subtype are checked for filtering—all beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundant text. Every sentence adds important detail without verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (summary fields) and filtering nuances. It covers all necessary context for a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds value: lists example account types, explains the dual-field filtering mechanism, and notes that summary totals reflect only the filtered subset. This helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 retrieves all accounts with balances and summary fields (total_balance, total_assets, total_liabilities), with optional filtering by account type and exclusion of hidden accounts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance_history or get_transactions.

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?

Provides context on filtering options and default behavior (hidden accounts excluded), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use it. The hint about dual-field filtering aids correct invocation.

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