mfc_ca_getSubAccounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation of fetching sub-accounts and adds no information about return format, filtering behavior (beyond what the schema parameter describes), pagination, or required permissions. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the name.

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 short sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it may be too sparse to be considered fully polished. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter but sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the schema fully covers parameter semantics, so the description does not need to explain much. However, the description lacks any usage context, behavioral details, or relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in an agent's ability to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the only parameter 'available', including its semantics and the caution that false means 'all' rather than 'disabled only'. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 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 '補助科目を取得します' states a clear verb ('取得' = retrieve) and resource ('補助科目' = sub-accounts), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as mfc_ca_getAccounts or mfc_ca_getDepartments, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or mention any sibling tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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