list_related_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the pagination contract and the return shape ('total_count and up to limit accounts'), which is the behavior an agent actually needs to drive a loop.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the paging rule. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing is 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the paging loop. The residual gap is definitional — what counts as a 'related' account — which the agent may need in order to choose this tool over get_accounts_by_id.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does explain both parameters functionally: limit caps how many accounts come back, and offset is to be advanced by the count of accounts returned. It omits the default of 20 and the 1–100 cap, but those are visible in the schema, so the semantic gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one page of the token owner's related accounts,' which separates it from get_current_account and get_accounts_by_id (singular identity lookups) and from the list_ads/list_ads_stats family. The one soft spot is that 'related' is left undefined — an agent cannot tell what the relation is or whether a more direct sibling would serve better.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the pagination instruction tells the agent how to continue iterating, which is real operational guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of when get_accounts_by_id or get_current_account would be the better call.

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