anon_get_accounts

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the calling authorization model, the visibility-scope filter, the super-admin exemption, and the guarantee that ciphertext/plaintext secrets are excluded. That is meaningful disclosure of what is and isn't returned.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then permissions/visibility, then the endpoint and the projectId clarification. Each sentence carries information; only the raw endpoint line is somewhat redundant given the tool context.

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 needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies permissions, visibility scoping, and secret-exclusion context, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; the platform filter is left to the schema.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (the wrapping `query` object has no description), though the nested `platform` field is documented in the schema. The description does not mention the platform filter, but it does clarify that projectId is auto-derived and must not be passed, which is genuine parameter-level value. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("列出平台账号" / list platform accounts) up front, making the read intent unambiguous. The scope qualifier (visibility check) further sharpens it. It does not explicitly name the write siblings (anon_post_accounts, anon_patch/delete_accounts), but the get/list framing is clear enough to distinguish it.

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?

States the eligible caller (project members) and the visibility scoping behavior, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., when to use this versus patching or a per-account get). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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