BinanceSubAccountGetList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Query' implies a read operation, but the description omits auth/scope requirements (master account API key), pagination behavior, rate limits, and what happens when no sub-accounts exist. Only the read-only implication and the master-account scope are conveyed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no repetition of the schema. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 five-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the schema covers parameters, but the description supplies nothing about auth scope, pagination limits, or the shape of the returned sub-account list. An agent could call it, but would be guessing at operational constraints.

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% with all five optional parameters documented (page, limit, email, isFreeze, recvWindow), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('list of sub-accounts under the master account'), so an agent knows this retrieves sub-account records rather than balances, transfer history, or API keys. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sub-account siblings such as BinanceSubAccountGetStatus or BinanceSubAccountGetAssets, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. filtering by email vs. listing all), and no stated prerequisites such as requiring master-account credentials. The only implicit hint is the phrase 'under the master account', which an agent must interpret on its own.

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