List Accounts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and non-destructiveness, so the description's 'Read-only' adds minimal new information. However, it adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool includes closed accounts, returns direct_import_in_error, and requires filtering if only active accounts are wanted. This helps the agent set expectations correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and result come first, followed by practical use cases and filtering guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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?

The tool is a low-complexity list operation with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety. The description adds the missing domain context: what the list contains, why you would use it, and how to handle closed accounts. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (budgetId and lastKnowledgeOfServer) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It mentions 'budget' contextually but does not explain the delta-request behavior; the schema already does.

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 identifies the resource ('all accounts in a budget'), then enumerates the returned fields (balances, type, status, last-reconciled, debt metadata). It clearly distinguishes itself from single-account or other list tools by emphasizing 'all accounts' and account-ID lookup for transaction tools.

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 states explicit use cases: finding account IDs for transaction tools, checking balances, and spotting direct-import errors. It also gives filtering guidance for closed accounts. It does not explicitly name get_account as the alternative for single-account lookups, so it misses a small opportunity to clarify when not to use this tool.

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