merit_list_accounts

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

The description discloses the HTTP endpoint and the filter behavior, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency and does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or returns a particular shape.

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 one focused sentence followed by a compact parameter explanation. Every element is useful, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with one optional enum parameter, the description covers the purpose and the only parameter's possible values. It does not describe response contents in detail, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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%, and the description essentially restates the same usageFilter semantics already present in the schema. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('Merit Aktiva chart of accounts'), and the exact API endpoint. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many other sibling list 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 makes the tool's use context clear: it is for listing chart-of-accounts data, and it explains how to filter via usageFilter. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools target the same resource, so selection ambiguity is minimal.

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