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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context: it reads saved records, does not mutate, and discloses returned fields (missing domains, check dates, pagination) – though it does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 with the usage trigger front-loaded, then scope, then return shape, then the negative boundary. No filler or restatement of the 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 no-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return information (missing domains, recorded check dates, pagination) and the mutation boundary. Nothing needed for correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the domains parameter is a match/check operation against the tracked list that surfaces unmatched ('missing') domains. That clarifies intent beyond the raw 'company domains to check against your tracked list' text.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('List accounts in your connected Intakra workspace') and adds a second mode ('match supplied domains against that list'), which no sibling offers. It also distinguishes itself from add_accounts and request_accounts by stating it 'does not add accounts or run a new check'.

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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('here is my account list', 'which companies am I tracking?') and an explicit negative boundary against the write/refresh siblings. An agent can pick this tool over add_accounts or get_account without further inference.

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