Get all ledger accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context about the content of the response (VAT codes, cost centre settings, etc.) but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 mostly efficient, with the second sentence providing valuable details about included fields. However, the first sentence exactly repeats the title, adding no new information. The structure is still compact and front-loaded, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. It clarifies the scope and content of the response but does not describe the output structure or mention any potential limitations (e.g., pagination). For a simple list operation, this is a minor gap, so a 4 fits.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, administration, which includes an enum and clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all ledger accounts (chart of accounts)', and further specifies what is included (VAT codes, cost centre settings, RGS codes, condensation codes). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like list_currencies or list_journals based on resource type.

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 usage by stating 'Get all ledger accounts for this administration', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or reference to a sibling tool. The intended use is clear but only implicitly conveyed through the resource name.

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