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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it returns id and nickname. It does not mention any other behavioral aspects like pagination or limitations, but given the safe-read annotations, the description provides minimal extra context. No contradiction.

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 short sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output, with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the simple functionality.

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?

While the tool is simple Basket (list accounts, no output schema), the description is very minimal and doesn't cover the parameter role or any extra context like return details beyond id and apelido. It could be more helpful for an agent deciding if this tool is appropriate.

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 has one optional parameter 'account' with no description, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose or format, leaving the model without useful guidance for filling 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 clearly states the tool lists ZapSign accounts linked to this install, specifying that it returns id and nickname. It distinguishes itself from other account-related tools like zapsign_account_plan and zapsign_account_users by focusing on the account list itself.

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 it is used to view linked accounts, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention any filtering or selection criteria beyond the optional 'account' parameter.

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