list_account_codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the codes are 'curated' and server-understood, implying a fixed reference set, but says nothing about size, ordering, or whether the list is static versus dynamic.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key noun phrase (account codes and role names) is front-loaded. It could be marginally stronger by noting the optional doc_type filter, but nothing is wasted.

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, zero-required-parameter reference lookup with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually. Return-value details are handled by the output schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100% and the single doc_type parameter is documented in the schema with its allowed values (BPA, BPP, DRE, DFC_MI, DVA). The description does not mention the filter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('curated account codes and role names') plus the scope qualifier 'understood by this server', which tells an agent this is a reference/enumeration lookup rather than a data query. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_datasets or list_fre_tables.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery call to learn valid account codes before querying financial data. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the guidance is adequate but thin.

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