List Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by noting closed accounts are included, the direct_import_in_error field, and the returned metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the core action comes first, followed by read-only clarification, use cases, and a helpful note about closed accounts. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage holes and a defined output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned, that closed accounts are included, and how it should be used.

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%, and both budgetId and lastKnowledgeOfServer are already clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond high-level context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List all accounts in a budget', and enumerates the exact fields returned (balances, type, status, last-reconciled time, debt metadata). It clearly distinguishes this tool from singular get_account and other list siblings by scope and content.

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?

States concrete use cases: finding account IDs for transaction tools, checking balances, and spotting direct-import errors. It also gives a filtering caveat for closed accounts. It does not explicitly contrast with get_account or other list tools, but the provided context is sufficient for a straightforward list operation.

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