list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all accounts') and returns specific fields, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the action and return data without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return fields, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and usage guidelines, which are needed for a complete understanding despite the simple 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?

The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with one parameter ('budget_id') clearly documented, so the baseline is 3. The description implies the parameter is needed ('for a budget') but doesn't explain format, validation, or usage context, offering no extra value over the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get all accounts for a budget' specifies the verb (get) and resource (accounts), and 'Returns account names, types, balances, and status' indicates the scope of returned data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account' (singular vs. plural) or 'list_budgets' (accounts vs. budgets), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a budget ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_account' (for single accounts) or 'list_transactions' (for different resource types). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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