List virtual accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of the default page size of 10, the 100 maximum, how cursor pagination behaves, or what happens with combined filters. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes almost nothing.

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 short and front-loaded, but the sentence "List virtual accounts." is duplicated verbatim, so one of the three lines carries zero information. The remaining filter sentence is efficient, but the redundancy signals a poorly assembled definition.

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?

This is an 8-parameter list tool with a nested created object, two enums, cursor pagination and no output schema. The description never addresses pagination or result shape, which is the main thing an agent needs for a list endpoint, leaving it materially incomplete for the tool's complexity despite strong annotations.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum values for type and status and the created date-range example. The description names four filters (type, status, customer, account_number) but adds no meaning beyond the schema and omits limit and both cursors, which are the parameters an agent most often gets wrong. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the verb and resource ("List virtual accounts"), which is clear enough to act on, but it is a literal restatement of the tool name and title with no scope or differentiation. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_virtual_account or get_virtual_account_by_reference beyond the word "list".

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this over get_virtual_account or get_virtual_account_by_reference, and no mention of prerequisites or pagination workflow. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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