list_sub_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default active filter, valid statuses, and the return fields (account IDs, names, statuses, labels). This goes beyond basic metadata, though it omits potential pagination or permission details. Still, it provides solid transparency for a read-only list operation.

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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter behavior and return details. Every sentence adds information, with no 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?

With only one optional parameter, an output schema (so return format is separately defined), and a thorough explanation of status filtering, the description covers all necessary operational aspects. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema describes 'status' only as an optional string/null with no enum or description. The description compensates fully by enumerating valid statuses and explaining the default behavior, making parameter usage clear.

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 opens with 'List sub-accounts accessible by the parent API key', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from other list_* tools by focusing on sub-accounts and the parent API key context.

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 explains the default behavior (active only) and the status parameter options ('archived', 'canceled', 'paused', 'all'), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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