List Accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: it names the returned fields and the important behavioral fact that the daily budget is per account rather than per workspace. It does not state that the call is read-only and side-effect free, nor mention permissions or rate limits, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the call-first directive, and each sentence carries weight. The enumerated return-field list is partially redundant given an output schema exists, which is a small inefficiency but not 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: it knows when to call it, why (account_id prerequisite), and what it yields. Return-format detail is legitimately out of scope since the output schema covers it.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the schema. It does usefully explain that the account_id produced here feeds every other tool, which adds conceptual value beyond the empty schema.

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 plus scope ('LinkedIn accounts connected to this Prosp workspace'), and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_account_budget or get_account_health, which operate on a single already-known account.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'Call this before anything else in a session' and gives the reason: every other tool needs an account_id. It even surfaces the per-account budget model, which shapes downstream planning. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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