List Wave accounts

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by revealing that archived accounts are silently excluded via the 'unarchived' qualifier — a scope constraint the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then filter mechanics, then practical examples. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return shape, the description only needs to cover purpose and filtering, which it does well. Only minor gaps remain: no hint about pagination relevance or the allowed 'types' vocabulary.

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 coverage is 50% (only page and page_size are documented), so the description must compensate for types/subtypes. It does so by explaining the filter semantics and giving concrete subtype values (CASH_AND_BANK, INCOME), though it never explains the ASSET/EQUITY/EXPENSE/INCOME/LIABILITY type enum or the subtype naming pattern.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (chart-of-accounts entries) with a scope qualifier (unarchived). This clearly distinguishes it from its siblings (customers, products, invoices, payments), which it also references by name.

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?

Gives concrete usage context by prescribing exact subtypes for two workflows (deposit account in wave_record_payment, income account for products), which tells the agent when and how to apply this tool. It stops short of stating when to use an alternative tool or when filtering is unnecessary.

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