list_accounts

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

The description only says 'List all accounts', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, response format, or whether archived accounts are included. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, simple list tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, given the variety of sibling account tools, a brief note on scope (e.g., 'all account types' vs. institution-specific) would enhance completeness. Still, it is adequate for basic selection.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per rules, the baseline is 4; the description adds no ambiguity around parameters since none exist.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('accounts'), scoped to 'the authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_institution_accounts' and 'list_transaction_accounts' in scope, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with 'list_institution_accounts' or 'get_account'.

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