fidelity_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 burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical discloses the return contents, but it does not mention whether a prior fidelity_login is required or what happens if the session is unauthenticated — relevant given a fidelity_login sibling exists.

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?

Two clauses, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the redirect second. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the key sibling alternative. The only missing piece is the authentication prerequisite implied by the fidelity_login/logout siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's parenthetical about returned fields is a small bonus but not a substitute for parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Fidelity accounts') and even names the returned fields (number and nickname), which no structured field does. It explicitly separates itself from fidelity_get_positions, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Directly routes the alternative case: 'For balances use fidelity_get_positions.' That covers the main ambiguity between accounts and positions, though it says nothing about the other siblings (status, login, quote) or when an account listing is required as a prerequisite.

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