mfc_ca_getAccounts

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 only restates the getter behavior implied by the name and does not mention read-only guarantees, authentication requirements, response format, or the important available=false semantics (all records, including disabled), which is left to the schema.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

Despite complete parameter documentation, the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides no usage context, return shape, or differentiation from many similar sibling retrieval tools. This makes it insufficient for reliable tool selection among the 25 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions are informative, including the nuance that available=false returns all active+inactive records and that office_code is required for API key auth unless MF_OFFICE_CODE is set. The description does not need to repeat these details.

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 '勘定科目を取得します' clearly states a specific verb (取得) and resource (勘定科目), indicating it retrieves account items. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like mfc_ca_getSubAccounts or mfc_ca_getConnectedAccounts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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