get_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior (limit/offset), filter semantics with prefix syntax (eq., contains., contains-i., gte.), and the discovery workflow. It does not explicitly state read-only/auth requirements, but 'Get' strongly implies a safe read operation, and the detailed parameter behavior adds useful context.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a one-line usage note, then a clean bulleted parameter list. Every line adds value, and the length is appropriate for the number of parameters.

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 having an output schema that covers return values, the description still explains the relationship to get_records, pagination, filtering, and all parameter semantics. It is complete for a list/discovery tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema has zero descriptions, yet the tool description documents all 9 parameters with types, defaults, examples, and filter syntax. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of coverage and goes well beyond the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all financial accounts (bank accounts, cash, cards, etc.)'. It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting it should be used first to discover account IDs, clearly positioning it as the account-discovery tool.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use this first to discover account IDs — you'll need them for get_records()', which provides a clear use case and relationship to an alternative tool. It does not list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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