list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: merging sources, deduplication logic, and detailed field explanations (account_id, platforms, roles, sources). This goes well beyond the annotation, providing a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the main purpose. It uses structured formatting for fields. While every sentence earns its place, the inclusion of code-like formatting slightly reduces conciseness. Still, it is clear and not verbose.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but implied), the description provides a complete picture: purpose, data sources, deduplication, field descriptions, and cross-tool usability. No gaps are evident.

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 zero parameters, so the schema covers 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist. However, it does explain the output fields, which is not required per the dimension but is beneficial. Baseline per guidelines is 4 for 0 parameters.

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 '광고주 계정 전체 목록' (full list of advertiser accounts). It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'accounts', and distinguishes from siblings by explaining the merging of two sources (`/ad-accounts` and `child-ad-accounts`) and deduplication by customerId.

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 by stating it returns all accessible accounts and that the account_id can be used in other tools. While no explicit when-not or alternative is given, the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_accounts_overview, whoami) suggests this is for initial account enumeration. The mention of cross-tool compatibility adds value.

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