子账号列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hints. The description adds pagination behavior, the returned field set, and the tool's role as an id source. No contradictions exist; the behavioral context is appropriate, though it does not disclose response format details.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core function and return fields, followed by an essential workflow instruction. Every phrase earns its place; 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 read-only list tool, the description plus 100% schema coverage covers the essentials: purpose, output scope, and the tool's role in the broader sub-account workflow. The absence of an output schema is not critical, though a short note on output format would round it out.

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%, with all 9 parameters documented in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no per-parameter semantics beyond noting the output includes id and that the query targets a product; it does not compensate further.

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 a specific verb and resource: '分页查询某产品的子账号' (paginated query of sub-accounts for a product), and lists concrete return fields (id, password, port, country, expiry). It also differentiates itself from the many sub_account_* mutation siblings by explicitly stating it is the source for sub-account ids used by all later operations.

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 gives a clear when-to-use signal: '后面所有按子账号操作的工具都从这里取 id' (all subsequent sub-account tools get ids from here), establishing this as the prerequisite lookup before any sub-account mutation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow role is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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