list_expenses_accounts

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, field filtering, summary option, and field naming details. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, which would be beneficial for a list endpoint.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a single paragraph with clear notes, no redundancy, and every sentence provides useful information.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: pagination, field filtering, summary, field details, and account scope. An agent can correctly invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining default values, constraints (max pageSize 500), and clarifying that the field name is accountNum not code. It also explains the summary parameter's effect.

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 it lists expenses accounts with pagination and field filtering. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it only returns expense/purchase accounts (PGC group 6) and suggests alternatives like get_chart_of_accounts or get_expenses_account for other account types.

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 includes explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it notes that income accounts are not included and recommends fetching the full chart via get_chart_of_accounts or reading a known account by id via get_expenses_account.

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