list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (cursor parameter suggests pagination but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description is too sparse for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'vendor/consignor accounts' (resource), 'with optional filters' (key capability). No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior (implied by cursor but not explained), default behavior when no filters are applied, or how results are ordered. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured metadata.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'optional filters' which aligns with the 'is_vendor' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The cursor parameter lacks description in both schema and tool description, creating a gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('vendor/consignor accounts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list tools on the server like 'list_batches', 'list_categories', 'list_items', 'list_locations', or 'list_sales', which all share similar list functionality for different resources.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'with optional filters' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account' (for single account retrieval) or 'search_suggest' (for search functionality). No explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison to sibling tools are provided.

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