list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical precondition (sync required) and the scope of accounts (wallets, cards, cash). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if sync hasn't been done, or the return format, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the function and scope, the second provides a necessary prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with one optional boolean and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It lacks details about error behavior when sync hasn't been performed and does not describe the return structure, but overall it is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 is one parameter (include_archived) with full schema coverage—its description 'Include archived accounts' is self-explanatory. The tool description adds no extra meaning about this parameter, which meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 ('List') and resource ('all user accounts'), with clarifying examples (wallets, cards, cash). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_categories and list_transactions by naming the exact resource type.

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?

Provides clear context by stating 'Sync must be done first', establishing a necessary precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource focus inherently differentiates it from other list tools.

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