get_accounts

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

The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, providing minimal behavioral disclosure. However, since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and omits important details like whether it returns summary or detailed data, pagination, or account statuses. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's essence without unnecessary detail, scoring high on conciseness and structure.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), the description is incomplete for effective tool selection. It lacks any context about how this tool relates to sibling tools, what the return structure is (no output schema), or any behavioral notes, making it only marginally useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (account_type) with an enum and description 'Account type filter', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 holds because the schema already provides complete information.

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 'List bank accounts' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('bank accounts'), making the core purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_credit_cards, which might also list financial accounts, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_balance or get_transactions. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or filters beyond the schema's parameter, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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