list_contact_accounts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not expand upon. The description fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination (offset/limit imply iterative retrieval) or the meaning of openWorldHint. It adds no value beyond what structured fields provide.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff. This is ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (multiple filters, pagination) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, how to combine q and filter, or how pagination works. For a complex list tool, this level of detail is insufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters; it merely restates the obvious. However, since the schema already documents each parameter, the description meets the minimum standard.

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 'Returns list of accounts for specified contact' uses a specific verb ('Returns list') and resource ('accounts for specified contact'), clearly differentiating it from sibling list tools like list_contact_addresses or list_contact_groups. It is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_contact_account (singular) or create_contact_account. It does not mention search vs. filter capabilities, pagination, or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the parameter names alone.

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