get_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description explains what each account result contains (accountSeq). It does not explicitly state a read-only guarantee or discuss edge cases like an empty account list, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is reasonably 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the tool's core purpose, and the second provides the crucial downstream usage context. No filler or repetition.

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, parameterless list tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It names the resource, identifies the key return field (accountSeq), and explains why that field matters to sibling tools, giving the agent everything needed to invoke and chain the 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema declares fully that none are required. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate and warrants the baseline score for zero-parameter tools.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous action: 'List your Toss Securities accounts.' It names the resource (accounts) and immediately clarifies the primary output (accountSeq). Though there is no direct sibling comparison, no other sibling tool lists accounts, so it is clearly distinguished by its specific verb and resource.

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 ties this tool to downstream usage: accountSeq is required by get_holdings, get_buying_power, get_commissions, and get_sellable_quantity as their account_seq argument. This tells an agent exactly when to call this tool — before those account-specific tools — making invocation ordering obvious.

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