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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds the install-scoped listing context and output fields, but it does not disclose pagination, authentication needs, or the effect of the optional account parameter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the action, object, scope, and returned fields.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a simple list operation with strong annotations, and it helpfully states the output fields. However, the undocumented optional parameter, lack of alternative guidance, and absence of an output schema leave clear gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 lists one optional 'account' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but leaves the agent to guess whether 'account' filters, selects, or is unused.

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 and resource: lists Digital Manager Guru accounts linked to this install, returning id and alias. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like guru_account by emphasizing the install-level listing scope.

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 use when an agent needs the IDs/aliases of accounts linked to the current install. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as guru_account or connect, so guidance is only implicit.

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