get_my_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns account IDs (not asking users for them), has conditional execution based on environment variables, and handles multi-account scenarios by listing them for user choice. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers the essential workflow.

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 efficiently structured in four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose statement, usage priority, environment variable handling, and multi-account scenario. There's no redundant information, and critical guidance is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, special conditions, and how to handle results. With an output schema handling return values, the description appropriately focuses on workflow rather than output structure.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage context.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('user's connected Meta ad account IDs and Google Ads customer IDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on account retrieval rather than analysis, generation, or management operations.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first before any other tool — never ask the user for account IDs.' It also specifies conditions for skipping the call when MUZE_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_ID is set and what to do when multiple accounts exist. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative handling instructions.

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