Get Account Hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioural detail beyond that: the result set is scoped to descendants of the given manager and includes the parent account itself, which affects how the agent interprets the output. Return format and pagination are not discussed, but an output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the first defines what is returned, the second the situation that motivates the call. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with a full schema, an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description supplies the remaining context (manager context, result scope). It omits what happens when a non-manager ID is supplied, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents customer_id thoroughly (digit-only format, accepted variants). The description only echoes the intent ('run this against the manager's customer ID'), adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 ('Lists all client accounts under a (manager) account') and adds a distinguishing scope detail ('including the account itself'), so it separates itself from a plain customer listing. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_accessible_customers, which covers similar ground, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context ('when the authenticated user works through an MCC/manager account') and the purpose of the call ('to find the child account IDs to use with reporting and management tools'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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