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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: API keys are never returned, output varies by auth mode (X-API-Key vs X-Dutify-Accounts), and single-account mode yields a 'default' entry. It stops short of documenting pagination or error behavior, so a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then mode behavior, then the usage trigger. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully compensates by describing the returned entries and field meanings. It also resolves the auth-mode ambiguity that would otherwise block correct interpretation of results. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both `account` and `workspace` at a high level. The description adds the useful linkage that the returned `name` is the value passed as the `account` argument, but it adds nothing further about the parameters themselves. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the accounts configured for this MCP session') and immediately defines the return shape (one entry per account with `name` and `workspace`). It also distinguishes itself from the workspace-oriented siblings by clarifying what `name` and `workspace` mean, so an agent can tell it apart from list_workspaces/find_my_workspace.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first when you do not know which account names are available', giving a clear trigger condition. It also explains the single-account vs multi-account mode split that determines output. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions (e.g. 'not for listing workspaces'), so not a full 5.

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