mfc_ca_getAccounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'retrieves account titles.' The verb 'retrieve' faintly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about auth requirements, side effects, defaults, or return shape. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence that is entirely front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero wasted wording, and the brevity is appropriate for what the tool does. Concision here is genuine and not a symptom of under-specification, as the schema handles parameter detail.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, some brevity is acceptable, but the description still fails to explain return values, differentiate from the three similarly named sibling get-* tools, or note any filtering implications beyond the schema. An agent cannot tell whether this returns master data, its format, or how it relates to sub/connected accounts, so completeness is inadequate.

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 'available' parameter is well documented in the schema, including the important caution that false means all records (enabled+disabled) and not 'only disabled.' The description itself adds no parameter information, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate and no compensation is required.

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' ('retrieves account titles') states a clear verb and resource, clarifying that 'Accounts' refers to accounting account titles in the Japanese context. It is close to a restatement of the tool name but adds domain specificity. However, it does not differentiate among close siblings like mfc_ca_getSubAccounts or mfc_ca_getConnectedAccounts, so it lacks the explicit distinguishing language of a 5.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention getSubAccounts, getConnectedAccounts, or any condition that would select one account-fetching tool over another. With multiple sibling tools that sound similar, an agent gets no routing help and must infer usage entirely from names.

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