Listar cuentas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose the read-only, enumerative nature plus the returned fields. However it says nothing about permissions, whether the list is filtered by the caller's account access, or any rate/volume constraints, so an agent cannot tell how complete the listing will be.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed immediately by when to reach for it. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and for a zero-parameter read tool there is little else to specify. It is close to complete, though an agent still lacks any statement about scoping or authorization of the returned accounts.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any input semantics and correctly introduces none.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lista las cuentas bancarias disponibles') and enumerates the fields returned (banco, tipo, moneda, numero), which is more than a tautology of the title. It implicitly separates itself from 'movimientos' by positioning itself as the prior step, but it never names any sibling tool explicitly.

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?

'Util como primer paso para saber que cuentas existen antes de pedir movimientos' gives clear usage context and even points at the natural follow-up action. It does not state exclusions or reference the actual sibling names ('saldos', 'saldos_historicos', 'movimientos'), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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