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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by specifying return shape differences between LinkedIn and Google accounts, including budget usage, email, and status. This helps the agent know what to expect from the response.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then the optional filter, then the return-value distinctions. Every sentence delivers useful 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 only two parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the main usage and return expectations. There is no output schema, so the mention of platform field and per-platform details is valuable. It does not address pagination or error behavior, but that is not critical for a simple read-only list operation.

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?

The schema documents the platform parameter with its enum and omission behavior, and the description reinforces this with concrete examples of 'linkedin' and 'google'. The required workspaceId has no description in the schema, and the description only implies it through 'workspace', which is minimal but adequate given the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 action ('List accounts connected to a workspace') and clearly identifies the resource as LinkedIn and Google accounts with a platform field. This is distinct from sibling tools like list_ad_accounts, which focuses on ad accounts, and get_account, which suggests a single account fetch.

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 implies when to use this tool: to retrieve accounts for a workspace, optionally filtering by platform. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_ad_accounts or list_external_email_accounts, leaving some routing to the agent's inference.

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