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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: external callers cannot search outside current memberships and memberships resolve from the original credential rather than a switched account's PAT. It also lists the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. Pagination or rate-limit behavior is not described.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the remaining sentences add access-boundary and return-shape details. It is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and explains auth scoping and caller restrictions. The schema already handles both optional filters. The main remaining gap is that pagination or result-size behavior is not mentioned, but otherwise the definition is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description restates that filtering can use partial name or exact account ID but adds no syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 ('List accounts') plus the exact scope ('signed-in user's current memberships') and optional filters. It also distinguishes this narrow membership-scoped listing from broader staff account search, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 makes the usage context clear: current memberships only, with partial-name or exact-ID filtering. It also states the key exclusion that external connector callers cannot search other accounts and points to the separate admin interface for scoped staff search. It does not explicitly route to a specific sibling MCP tool for alternative account lookups, which keeps it from a 5.

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