list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Accessible accounts') but does not clarify what 'accessible' means (e.g., permission-dependent), whether the result is a list of IDs, names, or objects, or if any pagination or filtering exists. No operational traits (e.g., read-only, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which slightly detracts from an otherwise concise presentation.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format or the meaning of 'accessible'. It provides only a minimal definition, leaving the agent without context on what the response contains or how to interpret 'accessible'. Given the simplicity, this is still inadequate.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty (coverage 100%). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 because there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given there are none.

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 the verb ('list') and resource ('accounts') with a specific scope ('under the configured login customer'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or run_gaql, which focus on data retrieval or query execution, not account enumeration. However, it doesn't explicitly name any alternative, so it's not a perfect 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name 'list_accounts' makes its purpose obvious, the description doesn't explain scenarios (e.g., 'use this to enumerate accounts before querying performance') or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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