List accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the default inclusion of off-budget accounts, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide. It adds some value but doesn't describe return format or pagination, though for a list-accounts tool this is less critical.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second adds a key behavioral detail about defaults. Every word earns its place, and the description is immediately scannable.

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?

For a simple filtered-list tool with 100% schema coverage, read-only annotations, and two parameter descriptions, the description is adequate. The default-behavior clarification about off-budget accounts is genuinely useful. It could mention return format or balance currency, but with no output schema, the agent's needs are reasonably met given the tool's simplicity.

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 (include_closed, include_off_budget) are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself only reiterates the off-budget default behavior already stated in the schema parameter description. The description adds minimal value over the schema's parameter documentation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists accounts with current balances, using a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('accounts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transactions and get_categories by focusing on account listing with balance info. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_net_worth, which could also be about balances.

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 mentions off-budget accounts are included by default, which gives context on what the default behavior is. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like get_net_worth, or explain when one might prefer to toggle include_off_budget or include_closed. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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