list_account_assignments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and the readable/read-only nature of listing assignments, which are helpful. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, potential absence of data, or behavior when required path parameters are missing, so the transparency is only partial.

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 sentences, purpose-leading, and efficient. It includes the endpoint and the essential placement instruction without excessive detail. The phrase 'or include values in query' is slightly vague but does not add bloat.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. Still, the description fails to specify that an account ID is effectively required in path_params for the call to succeed, and it offers no cross-reference to alternative tools. It is adequate for a straightforward GET list but incomplete for an agent to handle all necessary scenarios.

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?

Since the input schema is entirely generic (all additionalProperties, 0% coverage), the description compensates by explaining that route IDs belong in path_params and filtering/pagination/sorting belong in query. It omits the body parameter's role, but it provides enough meaning to make sense of the generic object containers.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'assignments' with an account scope, and further specifies the GET endpoint. It distinguishes the resource (account assignments) from other siblings, though it does not explicitly name list_assignments as the general alternative.

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 phrase 'for an account' implies this is for account-scoped assignments, which loosely suggests when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative tool reference. The bulk of the instruction is about parameter placement (path_params vs query), not when to choose this over siblings.

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