get_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all' and 'with balances' clearly indicate the operation is read-only and returns a complete list with balance data. The added note about using accountId for other tools provides useful context. It does not discuss pagination or permissions, but these are not critical for a straightforward 'get' operation.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded ('Get all financial accounts with balances') followed by a concise usage note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (balances), the scope ('all'), and how it fits into the broader workflow (get accountId for other tools). It lacks explicit pagination or error behavior, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema describes all three parameters (currency, accountType, includeArchived) with clear descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get all financial accounts') and the resource ('accounts'), with the additional detail 'with balances' specifying what is returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the entry point to retrieve accountId for other tools.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use this first to get accountId for other tools,' giving clear context for when to call this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but since there are no sibling account-specific tools, the guidance is effectively sufficient.

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