list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read operation ('Ruft ... ab') and implies a complete result set ('alle Konten'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, auth requirements, or any side-effect-free guarantee beyond the verb choice.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core purpose.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description captures the basic operation. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and any indication of return-value shape or usage context, which makes it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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 single parameter api_key has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents its meaning and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which aligns with the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Ruft alle Konten eines BuchhaltungsButler-Kunden ab' (retrieves all accounts of a customer). This clearly identifies the tool as a listing operation, but it does not distinguish it from siblings like list_posting_accounts or list_debtors, which share the list_* pattern.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_posting_accounts and list_receipts could potentially overlap, but the description does not explain the differentiator or any exclusions.

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