list_accounts

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

With no annotations this description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns per-account cash, asset, debt, and net-worth figures, the same grouping the app shows (Principais, Investimentos, Outras Contas), plus totals. It still omits whether the read is authenticated/live and whether results are paginated, but the data-shape disclosure is substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and return content, and every clause adds information (asset types, grouping, totals, app parity). It is dense rather than padded, though the long parenthetical lists make it slightly heavy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values, and it does so well by enumerating the account fields, grouping, and totals. Missing only invocation-time concerns like freshness or permissions, which are minor for a parameterless read tool.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level; baseline 4 applies.

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 scopes the resource: user accounts with cash balance, asset value (securities, funds, deposits), debt (credit card), and net worth per account, grouped into app categories plus totals. This is specific enough to distinguish it from movement/category siblings, though it never states an explicit verb like 'list/retrieve' and relies on the name for that.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for account balances and the 'Contas' page equivalent. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_annual_overview / get_month_summary guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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