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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the install-scoped context and the return fields (id and nickname), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction observed.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scope. It earns its place but could have added a brief note about the 'account' parameter without becoming verbose.

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 covers the purpose and mentions return fields (id and nickname), which is sufficient for a simple listing tool. However, the unexplained 'account' parameter leaves a gap in completeness, especially since there is no output schema or parameter documentation.

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 single optional parameter 'account' has zero schema description and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain what the parameter does, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.

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 explicitly states 'Lists Recall accounts linked to this install — id and nickname.' This clearly identifies the verb (lists) and resource (Recall accounts) with a scope (linked to this install), and distinguishes from sibling tools that list cards or search.

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 mentions that it lists accounts for the current install, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recall_list_cards or recall_search. It implies its use for retrieving account IDs, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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