monzo_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral context: accounts are tagged personal/joint and open/closed, and other account kinds keep Monzo's own type name and are "not synced" — a useful side-effect disclosure. However, it never states this is a read-only operation or what permissions are needed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in sentence one, then supporting detail. Three sentences, each contributing, though the account-type caveat is slightly verbose for a simple list tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and with zero parameters the definition is nearly complete. The main omission is any indication of safety/auth posture, which annotations would normally supply but here are absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No input-schema detail is needed here.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: "List all Monzo accounts with their types and IDs." An agent immediately understands this enumerates accounts, distinct from sibling list tools like monzo_list_pots or monzo_list_transactions. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. The description never says to call this before balance/transaction tools, nor how it relates to monzo_sync or monzo_spending. Usage is only implied by the tool's nature.

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