mf_accounting_list_accounts

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. It only says a list is retrieved; it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, how results are paginated, or what the return shape looks like. 'List' implies a read, but nothing more is disclosed.

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 zero wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. For a simple list tool this is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), so a brief description is defensible. Still, given the dense cluster of similar 'list' siblings, it should say at least enough to distinguish account retrieval from sub-account, tax, and department retrieval, which it does not.

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% – the single 'available' parameter is already documented in the schema as filtering to valid accounts only. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 states a clear verb and resource (取得する + 勘定科目一覧), so the basic operation is understandable. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as mf_accounting_list_sub_accounts, mf_accounting_list_taxes, and mf_accounting_list_departments, which are all list tools in the same accounting namespace. Without that differentiation a vague purpose score of 3 is warranted.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (sub-accounts, taxes, departments) or when not to use it. No prerequisites, no context, no alternatives are named. The description offers no routing guidance at all.

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