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 'List connected taxable brokerage and Roth IRA accounts,' which conveys a read-only intent but reveals nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors. The description is nearly synonymous with the tool name, adding only the account types and 'connected' qualifier.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks any mention of prerequisites or edge cases, but for a simple account listing operation, these are not critical. The output schema covers return values, so no additional description is required there.

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 tool has zero parameters, so a baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. The empty schema is fully consistent with the tool's simple purpose.

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 specific verb 'List' and a clear resource ('connected taxable brokerage and Roth IRA accounts'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_holdings and get_transactions by focusing on accounts rather than holdings or transactions. An agent can determine exactly what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs to list connected taxable brokerage and Roth IRA accounts. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use get_holdings or get_transactions, but the resource distinction is clear and no conflicting context is present.

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