list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this reads a 'local cache' and returns best-effort data ('label inferred from org names'), which is useful behavioral context about data quality. However, it doesn't discuss privacy/caching nuances, whether results might be stale, or what happens when the cache is empty.

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 compact and efficient — two short sentences. The first states the purpose clearly and the second explains the output fields. Zero waste, well-structured.

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 0 parameters and a rich output schema that this description complements by explaining field semantics, this is a simple tool. The description covers purpose, output fields, and data quality caveats. It fully suffices for what is effectively a parameterless list operation.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties). The description adds value by explaining what each field in the output means (key for filtering, tenant_id, user_id, labeled inference), which is effectively parameter/output guidance given there are no actual parameters to document.

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 clearly states 'List the Teams accounts (tenant/user contexts) in the local cache' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (list_conversations, recent_messages, etc.) by specifying accounts rather than messages/conversations. However, it could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 implies usage context (listing cached accounts to get keys for filtering) but doesn't explicitly state when to use vs not use alternatives. It notes the key is used as an 'account' filter elsewhere, which hints at usage, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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