List client accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that account IDs are needed for wallet operations and that most clients have one, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., client with no accounts) or return format details, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource, with a parenthetical adding relevant context. No wasted words, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and why it matters. It does not spell out the exact return shape, but the emphasis on account IDs implies the essential output. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions with client_id as 'Client UUID'. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond noting the client context, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool lists billing accounts of a client, which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like list_clients or list_contracts. The parenthetical adds purpose (needed for wallet operations) and cardinality (most clients have one), making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: before wallet operations, since account IDs are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and helpful for an agent deciding between this and get_wallet_balance or list_clients.

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