List Accounts

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read operation, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: masked account numbers, formatted balances, field semantics, and the condition under which balance and currency are None. It does not cover ordering or pagination, but those appear irrelevant for a zero-parameter list.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently documents the return shape. Every sentence contributes directly to selecting or using the tool, with no redundant 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description gives enough detail about scope, returned fields, masking, formatting, and null behavior. An output schema exists, but the added field notes further help an agent understand the result without being redundant.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the schema is empty and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 and resource: “List every connected account,” and specifies the scope and output contents. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like acct_get_account or acct_get_account_balance, which handle single accounts or balances.

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 the tool is used to retrieve all connected accounts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as acct_get_account or acct_get_account_balance. There are no exclusions or routing guidance.

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