list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description details grouping by type, exclusion of closed accounts, and default inclusion of zero-balance accounts. It implies read-only behavior but lacks explicit mention of side effects or data freshness. Output schema exists, reducing the need for return value details.

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?

Five sentences, each adding value, with the purpose front-loaded. No wasted words, efficiently conveys all key information.

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 list tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, defaults, filtering, and grouping. No gaps remain given the complexity.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining the purpose of type_filter (narrow to category) and hide_zero_balance (overrides default shown behavior), providing clear semantics beyond the schema enums and default values.

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, specifying the resource (accounts), verb (list), and context (Personal Capital / Empower). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transactions or get_net_worth.

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 explains default behavior (zero-balance shown, closed excluded) and the type_filter parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions for not using it.

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