Get Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a sketch of the returned fields, with no mention of pagination, ordering, or whether the list is scoped to a single portfolio — though the presence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 two sentences say essentially the same thing twice ('including account types and balances' / 'including account types, balances, and account-specific information'), so half the text is redundant rather than adding information. Front-loading the core purpose is done well.

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?

With zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description only needs to position the tool against its siblings — and it doesn't. Nothing about return values is required, but the missing routing guidance leaves a real gap in a crowded account-related tool family.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a no-argument, portfolio-wide listing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all accounts in your portfolio') and names the payload fields (account types, balances). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_account_details or get_account_balances, which the 'including ... balances' phrasing partially overlaps with.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_account_details, get_account_balances, or get_portfolio_details, all of which sit adjacent in the sibling list. The agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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