list_finance_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only listing with balances, but does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, or whether only active accounts are returned. This is adequate for a simple list but not rich.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes helpful examples without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the main return (accounts with balances). However, it could be more explicit about exact fields returned, but it is still complete enough for this simple use case.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything (100%). The description adds no parameter info, but since there are none, the baseline of 4 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 clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('financial accounts'), and provides examples (bank, wallet, savings). It distinctly differs from sibling tools like list_finance_categories and list_transactions by focusing on accounts with balances.

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 context is clear: use this tool to list financial accounts and their balances. The examples naturally disambiguate it from related finance tools, though no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative mentions are given.

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