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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that accounts are linked to the install and what fields are returned, but it does not explain whether the optional 'account' parameter affects the result or how the listing behaves beyond that. This is useful but minimal additional context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a practical use case. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and why to use it.

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 tool is simple and read-only, and the description states its output fields (id/email, label) and a usage trigger. However, the absence of any parameter semantics for the optional 'account' field and the lack of an output schema leave a gap: an agent cannot be fully sure whether to pass anything or what might change in the listing. The description is good but not complete enough for full autonomous invocation.

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 for the single optional 'account' parameter is 0% and the description only references `account` as a value to discover, not as a parameter of this tool. It does not clarify what the parameter does, its format, or whether it filters the list. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but only partially does.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista' / lists) and a clear resource ('contas Google Keep vinculadas a este install') with the output details (id/email, label). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keep_list_labels and keep_find by focusing on account discovery.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use pra descobrir o `account` quando há várias.' This provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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