list_account_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only retrieval action, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, base_date semantics, or what fields are returned in the response.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal, though the brevity means it provides little beyond the tool name.

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 tool with two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent would benefit from knowing what an account item is, how base_date affects results, and the shape of the returned list.

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%, with both base_date and company_id already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it earns the baseline score but does not improve on 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 states a specific verb (取得 = get) and resource (勘定科目一覧 = list of account items), so an agent can tell it retrieves a chart-of-accounts list. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_items, but the term 勘定科目 clearly targets accounting account items rather than generic items.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_items, list_deals, or get_trial_balance. There are no context cues, exclusion conditions, or scenario-based instructions.

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