list_walletables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a list is retrieved, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, required company scoping, whether with_balance changes the response shape, or any authentication/permission requirements.

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 Japanese phrase with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It does not clarify what 'walletables' are, how this differs from list_wallet_txns, what the returned list looks like, or the impact of with_balance. The agent can form a basic call from the schema but not a complete mental model.

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 company_id and with_balance documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 '口座一覧を取得' ('retrieve list of accounts') clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's basic function obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_wallet_txns, but the resource naming is distinct enough to avoid outright confusion.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_wallet_txns or get_trial_balance. An agent must infer usage from the name alone, with no exclusions or context clues about which tool fits which scenario.

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