list_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 mentions the HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, and explains where parameters go (path_params vs query). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, authentication requirements beyond 'authenticated administrator', or any side effects. The coverage is partial but not contradictory.

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 only two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter guidance is concise and actionable. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 (a list operation) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the core purpose and parameter organization. However, it leaves the body parameter entirely unaddressed and does not mention any limitations or prerequisites beyond the admin audience. An agent would need to infer some details from the sibling set or the API documentation.

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 is generic (all params are open objects), and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that path_params holds route IDs and query holds filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values. However, it completely omits the body parameter, leaving a third of the schema unexplained. The guidance adds value but is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('accounts'), and clarifies scope ('available to the authenticated administrator'). It also names the HTTP endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_account_assignments or list_learners. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly tied to the tool's name.

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 some context ('available to the authenticated administrator') and explains parameter placement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its many siblings, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from other list_account_* tools.

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