list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (type, overdraft policy, balance) but does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether filtering or ordering applies, or any limitations. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks explicit safety or behavior notes.

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, straightforward sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource and the three key attributes returned. It lacks explicit alternatives or caveats, but given the simplicity, this is nearly 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on the returned data rather than parameter details, which is appropriate since there is nothing to document.

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 returns every account along with type, overdraft policy, and current balance. It is specific and implies listing all accounts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_balance or list_entries, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: it should be used when you need a comprehensive list of all accounts and their key attributes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, though the context makes it reasonably obvious.

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