List accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses a per-account bank call cost, explains that booked balance is the reliable total, and warns that available may include credit lines. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the disclosed traits go well beyond a bare listing.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core purpose first, the optional parameter behavior second, and the balance-totals caveat last. No repetition of schema fields and no filler.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, optional balance retrieval, and the network cost. It is slightly light on when to choose this over balance-specific siblings, but nothing needed to make a correct call is missing.

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 schema provides only a boolean name and default with no property description, so the description fully compensates by explaining the effect of include_balances and the meaning of booked vs available balances. This is exactly the semantic detail needed for correct invocation.

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 returns all linked accounts with the key fields (bank, IBAN, currency, consent expiry). The optional balance behavior distinguishes it from list_banks and get_balances, giving the agent enough to know exactly what this tool retrieves.

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 gives practical parameter guidance: set include_balances to fetch booked balances and use booked rather than available for totals. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like get_balances or list_banks, leaving usage-vs-alternative decisions to inference.

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