bridge_list_virtual_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all virtual accounts' and does not mention return format, pagination behavior, empty results, or any other operational characteristics. The lack of detail leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 and no annotations. The description fails to mention what the response contains (e.g., an array of virtual account objects), pagination, or any error scenarios. For a complete understanding, the agent would need more details about the return value, especially since the output schema is absent.

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 schema describes customer_id simply as 'The customer ID', but the description adds context by stating the accounts are 'for a customer', clarifying that the parameter identifies whose virtual accounts to retrieve. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('virtual accounts'), and the scope ('for a customer'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bridge_list_wallets (different resource) and bridge_get_virtual_account (singular vs plural).

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 phrase 'for a customer' implies that the customer_id parameter is required and that this tool is appropriate when needing all virtual accounts for a specific customer. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like bridge_get_virtual_account or bridge_list_wallets.

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