Get all cost centre accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that this returns a list of all cost centre accounts and mentions the underlying endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or ordering. Given annotation coverage, the description provides moderate added value.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action ('Get all cost centre accounts'), followed by a clarifying sentence and an endpoint hint. There is slight redundancy between the first line and the second sentence, but overall every line contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 operation with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It indicates the resource, scope (administration), and a direct API endpoint. No critical missing information such as authentication or prerequisites is expected for this read-only list tool, though pagination behavior is not mentioned.

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 single parameter 'administration' is fully documented in the schema with an enum of 'default' and a description stating it is the client administration to act on. The description's phrase 'for this administration' aligns with the schema but adds no extra meaning beyond it. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get all cost centre accounts' and elaborates with 'Get a list of all cost centre accounts for this administration.' It uses a specific verb (get/list) and resource (cost centre accounts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ledgers or list_journals. The endpoint reference further clarifies the intent.

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 cost centre accounts for a given administration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or selection criteria. Since there are no directly competing sibling tools (no other cost-centre-specific tool exists), the implied usage is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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