hl_sub_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only provides a noun phrase, revealing nothing about return data, side effects, permissions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The agent is left entirely in the dark about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 extremely short, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits essential information. The single phrase 'Sub-accounts for master (subAccounts)' is a vague label, not a functional description. It does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the tool's name.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the basic purpose of the tool is undefined. For a one-parameter tool, the description should at minimum state that it retrieves sub-accounts for a given master user. The current text does not even specify what the tool does, making it incomplete for even the simplest invocation.

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 one required parameter 'user' (string), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so the agent has no context about what 'user' represents (e.g., master account ID, email) or how it should be formatted. The description shoulders the responsibility to compensate for schema gaps, and it completely fails to do so.

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 'Sub-accounts for master (subAccounts)' identifies a resource but lacks a verb to indicate the operation. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no clear idea whether it fetches, lists, or creates sub-accounts. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to sibling tools like hl_user_portfolio or hl_user_fills. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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