simba_list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but doesn't describe what the tool returns, whether it's paginated, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The phrase 'com filtros explicitos' suggests parameter-based filtering but doesn't explain the behavior beyond that minimal hint.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a listing/querying operation rather than just 'Lista'.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and hints at filtering, but doesn't provide enough context about parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from sibling tools for confident tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'filtros explicitos' which hints at the filtering parameters, but doesn't explain what any of the 6 parameters mean, their relationships, or how they affect results. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's inputs.

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 clearly states the verb ('Lista') and resource ('contas do SIMBA'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies 'com filtros explicitos' which adds useful context about filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'simba_list_accounts_by_person', which appears to be a more specific variant.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'simba_list_accounts_by_person' or any other filtering tools. The phrase 'com filtros explicitos' hints at filtering capability but doesn't specify when this general listing tool is preferable to more specific alternatives.

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