accounts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the output content (email and scopes) but discloses no further behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource and appending the returned fields. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the resource, and the returned fields. It does not detail the response structure, but with no output schema and such a simple resource that is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 4. The description has nothing to add beyond what an empty schema already conveys, and it does not misrepresent any argument.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista' — lists) and a clear resource ('perfis (contas Google) configurados'), and specifies the output content (e-mail e escopos). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mutations accounts_add/accounts_remove by its read-only verb, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 a read-only enumeration use case — call this when you need the configured Google account profiles. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance, exclusions, or references to alternatives like accounts_add/accounts_remove, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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