get-accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly communicates a read-only retrieval operation and the returned content. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or exact response shape, but for a zero-parameter list tool the core behavior is transparent.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, names the returned fields, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless retrieval tool, the description covers the essential information: what is returned and its scope ('all accounts'). The lack of output schema is partially compensated by naming balance and ID as the returned fields, though details like response envelope or ordering are not stated.

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 provides no parameter documentation to rely on. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what is returned rather than on parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('a list of all accounts') with clear return fields ('current balance and ID'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with transactions, categories, budgets, and payees.

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 context for when to use the tool: when all accounts with their current balance and ID are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the domain (accounts) is distinct enough from the siblings that routing is straightforward.

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