Create Account

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that Ghostfolio currently has no boolean 'excluded' flag on accounts, so agents should not expect to exclude accounts directly through this tool. This is a useful limitation disclosure that helps set expectations.

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 relatively short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It is slightly redundant because 'Create a new account' appears in both the first and second sentences, but the additional note is well-placed and earns its place by explaining a relevant version-specific limitation.

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 that the tool has an output schema, annotations, and 100% parameter documentation in the schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, typical use, and an important scope limitation. It does not discuss possible duplicate behavior or error conditions, but that is not critical given the rich structured data already available.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description mentions name, currency, and optional balance, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but does not elevate the parameter knowledge available to the agent.

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 and resource ('Create a new account in your portfolio') and mentions the key fields (name, currency, optional balance). While this is specific and unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_account_balance; the distinction relies on the resource name rather than an explicit contrast.

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 gives a clear purpose ('useful for organizing your investments across different account types or platforms') and adds an explicit limitation: the tool cannot handle the 'excluded' flag because that is done via tagging outside this tool's scope. It stops short of naming alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for typical account-creation cases.

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