get_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns accountSeq and that it lists accounts, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, account scope (e.g., real vs. paper accounts), or any other behavioral constraints. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, with the key output value (accountSeq) front-loaded and the dependent tools named. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides all the context needed for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how it fits into the broader workflow. It also names the dependent tools, making the context complete without being verbose.

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, so there is no parameter-level information needed. The schema coverage is effectively 100% because the properties object is empty. The description adds useful return-value context (accountSeq) even though there are no parameters to explain.

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's function: listing Toss Securities accounts. It also distinguishes the tool by explaining that it returns accountSeq, which is required by other account tools, making its role in the tool family explicit.

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 explicitly identifies this as a prerequisite for other account tools (get_holdings, get_buying_power, etc.), which tells the agent when this tool should be used first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct usage.

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