list_account_clients

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It describes the data returned (status, isOwner) and includes pending invitations. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or auth requirements, the 'list' verb and context imply a safe query. Adds value by detailing output fields beyond what a schema would provide.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and data, the second provides usage context. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence is valuable.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. For a simple list operation, this is complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it compensates by describing the response structure and usage context, which is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists users linked to the client account, including both accepted members and pending invitations, with specific fields like status and isOwner flag. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_account_emails or list_account_contacts.

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?

Provides concrete use cases ('who has access to my account?' and 'find a linked user before discussing collaborators'), guiding the agent on when to invoke this tool. Does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the examples imply its primary purpose.

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