List accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes further by disclosing domain behavior: balance_main is the main-currency conversion and totals cover only in-balance accounts. It does not cover return ordering or pagination, but the semantic disclosure is genuinely additive.

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?

Four terse sentences, each carrying distinct information (fields, conversion semantics, totals scope, sibling routing). It opens with a field list rather than a purpose statement, which is slightly less front-loaded than ideal, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains the returned fields, the meaning of balance_main, and the scope of totals. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only filtering/archived behavior nuances are left implicit.

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 types, search, and include_archived are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how search interacts with archived filtering), so the baseline 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 makes clear this returns account records and enumerates the fields carried (balances, currency, credit limit, bank, flags), and it explicitly routes debt data elsewhere. The verb is only implied by the tool name/title rather than stated, but the resource and scope are unambiguous and distinguished from sibling list_debts.

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 names one exclusion ('Debt bookkeeping is in list_debts'), which gives partial routing, but offers no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_overview, create_account, or update_account. Usage is only implied.

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