Счета и остатки

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, so the description adds useful behavioral context: balance is initial plus actual operations, planned operations are excluded, and currencies must not be mixed. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies output semantics.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the resource, the second defines balance calculation, and the third gives a critical currency caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It does not describe the response shape or default archived-account behavior, but those gaps are minor given the schema and low complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; the business and include_archived parameters are already well documented in the schema.

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 identifies the resource as accounts of a case with current balances, and the tool name accounts_list supplies the missing verb 'list'. It is specific about what is returned but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling account_get.

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 this is the listing tool for accounts and gives important guidance about balance semantics and currency handling, but it never explicitly states when to prefer accounts_list over account_get or accounts_save. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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