list_posting_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description does mention that the tool accesses accounts of a 'BuchhaltungsButler-Konto' and implies a read operation. However, it does not disclose details about pagination (beyond limit/offset parameters), potential authorization requirements, or what happens if no accounts exist. This is minimal but not fundamentally misleading.

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, concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary wording. Ideal for a simple listing tool.

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 the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is adequate to inform an agent what the tool does. However, it does not mention any specifics about the response structure, potential errors, or whether authentication is always required. For a straightforward listing operation, this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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%, meaning each parameter has its own description in the schema. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'ruft alle Sachkonten ab', which might imply no parameters are typically needed. Given the high schema coverage, the description does not need to explain parameters further, hence a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves all posting accounts ('Sachkonten') for a BookkeepingButler account. It uses a specific verb ('Ruft ab') and resource ('Sachkonten'), and the sibling tool 'list_accounts' likely refers to a different type of accounts, providing implicit differentiation based on the German terminology.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to retrieve posting accounts), but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools like 'list_accounts' or 'list_postings' to clarify distinctions, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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