ListAccounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the informational content of the response (budget status and balance breakdowns), which is useful but partly duplicated by the output schema. No pagination, ordering, or closed-account-default behavior 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the returned fields. No wasted wording, though the enumeration is dense and could be trimmed since the output schema covers it.

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?

With a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to establish scope, which it does. The one gap is that it doesn't state whether closed accounts are returned by default, leaving the include_closed default ambiguous without the schema.

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 both parameters (plan_id with its 'last-used' default and ListPlans pointer, include_closed) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or the default for include_closed, 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a plan's accounts') and enumerates the returned content: type, on-budget vs tracking status, and the three balance figures. It is clearly distinguishable from Ynab_GetAccount and Ynab_CreateAccount by the plural 'list' framing, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. It does not say to use Ynab_GetAccount for a single account, nor does it explain when to set include_closed. Usage is left entirely to inference 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.