get_chart_of_accounts

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully handles transparency. It explicit states 'Read-only' and notes it returns data for the 'ACTIVE fiscal year' with specific fields. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., caching, permissions) mentioned, but for a simple zero-parameter GET, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states main purpose and scope, second lists returned fields and distinguishes from sibling. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains output fields, scope (active fiscal year, all groups), and safety (read-only). Minor gaps: no error handling or performance notes, but acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

No parameters exist (input schema is empty with 100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (fields and scope) which goes beyond the empty schema, compensating for lack of parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets the full chart of accounts for the active fiscal year, lists the returned fields (num, name, group, debit, credit, balance), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_expenses_accounts by noting it includes all groups. Very specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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?

Indicates use when needing the full chart (all groups) vs list_expenses_accounts (group-6 only), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, prerequisites, or context beyond the sibling comparison. Implied usage but no explicit direction.

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