list_service_accounts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the operation (list), scope, and included fields, which implies a read-only behavior. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or potential large result sets, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output (service accounts with timestamps and rotation state) and a use case. It does not explicitly state the return format, but 'List' implies a list, making it sufficiently complete.

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 takes zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no user input is needed, so no further parameter explanation is required.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource ('service accounts') with precise scope ('under every client app of the current tenant') and additional details (last-used timestamps, auto-rotation state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tenant_users or query_session_anomalies.

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?

Provides a clear use context ('Useful for spotting dormant integrations') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. While this is not as strong as naming sibling tools, the purpose is well implied.

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