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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the redundant "[read]" prefix adds nothing. The description does contribute the shape of the returned records and the intended hand-off of the id/uuid to other storage tools, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or whether accounts are paginated or complete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its fields, followed by the usage note and the optional filter. The parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place; the only waste is the redundant "[read]" tag.

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?

For a simple, non-destructive, zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the downstream use of the identifier, which is exactly what an agent needs to chain this call. Missing only pagination/size expectations, a minor gap at this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains that both seliee_website_id and seliee_website_uuid scope the result to one website and are optional ("Optionally only the accounts of one website"). What it doesn't clarify is the id-vs-uuid relationship or whether one takes precedence when both are supplied.

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 names the specific resource (the merchant's storage accounts) and enumerates the returned fields (storages_account_id / storages_account_uuid, name, provider, bound website), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_storage_files or list_storage_remote_files. It doesn't explicitly state the contrast with those file-oriented tools, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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?

It tells the agent what to do with the *result* ("Use storages_account_id ... with the other storage tools"), which is helpful downstream guidance, and it notes the optional website scoping. However, it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives such as list_websites or list_storage_files, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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