get_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the account types (manual vs. synced) and the data shown (balances, types, status), but does not disclose potential behaviors like whether hidden/archived accounts are included, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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 concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Get all Lunch Money accounts'). Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It states what the tool returns and distinguishes account types. It could be slightly more explicit about response contents (e.g., includes account names/IDs), but it covers the essential use case adequately.

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 the schema is fully covered (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics needed. It instead provides useful return-value context, which is appropriate given no output schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all Lunch Money accounts, explicitly distinguishing between manual and synced (Plaid) accounts. It also mentions what the response shows (balances, types, status), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like manage_account.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever all accounts are needed, with no filtering or modification. It clearly differentiates from management tools by focusing on retrieval only, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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