get_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds some context by explaining that the response contains accountSeq and how to use it downstream. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error cases, leaving gaps for a simple read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence provides a critical cross-API integration detail without unnecessary fluff.

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 adequately covers the purpose and the key response field (accountSeq) for downstream use. It does not explain the full response structure, but this is likely acceptable given the simplicity of the tool and the clear integration guidance provided.

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 input schema is complete (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that the response's accountSeq is used as a parameter in other APIs, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the user's account list, using specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and resource '계좌 목록' (account list). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the accountSeq usage for other account-related APIs, which is unique to this tool.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to get the user's accounts, and then use the returned accountSeq as the account_seq parameter in other account-related APIs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but there are no direct alternatives for listing accounts among siblings, so this is sufficient guidance.

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