List Lunch Flow accounts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: that text fields originate from banks/third parties and should be treated as data, not instructions. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination, which matters for an open-world listing tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by the sequencing hint and the injection warning. The mention of 'merchant, description' fields is slightly at odds with the enumerated return fields (which are account-level), a minor imprecision.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the account fields. The only real gap is that it does not say whether results are paginated or how many accounts to expect, which for an openWorldHint listing tool is a small but real omission.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and returns all connected accounts.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all bank and card accounts connected to Lunch Flow') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, institution, provider, currency, status), so an agent can distinguish it from the transaction and balance siblings without opening a 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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Call this first to get account ids'), which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs before calling lunchflow_get_account_transactions or lunchflow_get_account_balance. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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