get_accounts

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a combined list with minimal information for each account, including specific fields. Since there are no annotations, it adequately covers the read-only nature and output structure, though it could mention if there are any limitations like pagination.

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 with three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return value. It lists the main fields but could mention error conditions or prerequisites for completeness, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this need.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the baseline score for such cases is 4. The description adds value by detailing the types of accounts included and output fields, which goes beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 'Get all accounts' and specifies it includes both manual and Plaid-synced accounts, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other resources like categories and transactions.

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 mentions 'Useful for understanding which accounts are available and their current balances,' which implies a usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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