holded_list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the action is a listing operation and describes the optional filter behavior (group by first digit of the account code). It does not mention pagination or output format, but for a simple read-only list tool, the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 concise: two short sentences in Spanish, with the core action front-loaded and the optional parameter explained in the second sentence. No filler or redundant details are present.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need extensive context. It explains what the tool lists and how the filter works, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A small gap is the absence of details about the returned account fields, but this is minor for a simple list operation.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter 'group' at 100% coverage with the same meaning: filtering by first digit of the account code 1-9. The description essentially repeats this information in natural language without adding new semantic details, so it sits at the schema-coverage baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a precise resource ('las cuentas del Plan General Contable configuradas en Holded'), making its function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other resources like documents, contacts, or treasury items.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to list the chart of accounts configured in Holded, optionally filtered by PGC group. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for other accounting data, such as ledger entries or balance sheets.

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