list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: check=true performs a login against the mail service and returns INBOX counts, and the 授权码 value is only reported as a stored/not-stored flag rather than exposed. It doesn't say what a failed login looks like or whether check has side effects on the account, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences; the base listing and its returned fields come first, and the opt-in flag behavior follows. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates what is returned, including the conditional INBOX counts with check. It's nearly complete for a single-flag read tool; only ordering/shape of the account list and error behavior are unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter has no description, so the description must carry it — and it does, explaining exactly what check=true adds over the default and that the default omits login and INBOX counts. Only the cost/behavior on partial failure is left implicit.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('configured NetEase accounts') and an enumeration of the fields returned: default account, mode (readonly/draft/full), and whether a 授权码 is stored. No sibling tool lists accounts, and the description makes that scope unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states the condition that selects the expensive behavior: 'check=true also logs in and reports INBOX counts', so an agent knows when to opt in versus take the cheap default. It doesn't name trade-offs or exclusions (e.g. latency/credential-failure behavior) but there is no sibling alternative to route to.

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