Get Accounts

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail about the return shape ('Dictionary containing account information including accounts list and total value'), but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates: 'Get all accounts...' and 'Retrieves a list of all accounts...' restate the same scope and fields. Only the Returns line adds meaningful new information (total value). The description could be cut to one efficient sentence without losing substance.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it covers what is returned and that it is portfolio-wide. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but that is not critical for invoking this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing about parameters the description needs to compensate for.

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 a specific action ('Get all accounts') and resource ('your portfolio'), and lists the relevant fields (account types, balances, account-specific information). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_account_balances, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need all accounts and their balances. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_account_balances or get_account_details instead, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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