list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and enumerates account types, but does not explicitly state that it modifies nothing, nor does it mention any rate limits, auth requirements, or output format. Since 'list' is inherently non-destructive, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not rich disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and includes a useful usage hint. No wasted words; every clause contributes.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and when to use it, and even hints at the return categories. It doesn't detail the exact return structure or pagination, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 schema needs no explanation. The description adds meaning by clarifying the scope ('all of the user's accounts') and providing examples, which is appropriate. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 explicitly states 'List all of the user's accounts' with a clear verb and resource, and differentiates this tool from siblings like get_account_balances or get_portfolio_valuation by focusing on account enumeration rather than balances or valuations. The subtypes (depots, cash accounts, insurance) add specificity.

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 gives explicit 'when to use' guidance: 'Start here when you need to know which accounts exist before drilling in.' This clearly positions the tool as the entry point and implies alternatives for deeper dives, without listing them but providing a clear context for selection.

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