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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (accountId, names, email, userType) and the underlying endpoint. It says nothing about pagination semantics or result caps, which the schema only partially implies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filters before the return fields and endpoint. The final 'Neon: GET /accounts.' line is marginal but genuinely useful for an API-wrapper tool, so almost nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concisely; all six parameters are covered by the schema, the read-only nature is declared by annotations, and the search alternative is pointed to. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filterable fields (email, name, type) without adding any format, matching, or interaction guidance beyond what the schema already provides — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List constituent accounts'), clarifies scope (individuals and companies), enumerates the filter dimensions, and names the sibling (neon_search) it is not. An agent can distinguish it from neon_get_account and neon_search without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes richer queries to neon_search, which gives a clear alternative-selection rule. It does not, however, state when-not to use this tool or any prerequisites for the filtered lookups, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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