Accounts: get all the accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: there is no update or delete endpoint in v1 and an account created here can only be listed afterwards, which helps set expectations despite the read-only nature.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the read-only flag, and each section adds value. The bolded 'get all the accounts' repeats the title slightly, but the rest is focused and avoids unnecessary 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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns conceptually, how it relates to transaction tools, and which sibling to use instead. The lifecycle note about missing update/delete endpoints adds completeness for a no-parameter read operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description still adds relevant context by explaining that the output is used to resolve account names to the numeric account id expected by transaction tools.

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 uses a specific verb (list) and resource (bank, cash and credit-card accounts) and explicitly contrasts these with the chart of accounts, pointing to postingaccounts_list for posting account numbers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: to list accounts that transactions can be booked against and to resolve account names to numeric account ids. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('Not the chart of accounts') and names the alternative tool, postingaccounts_list.

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