List accounts info

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds something genuinely beyond them: the data is 'inferred from the SingleOps web app's own traffic' and results should be confirmed, which warns the agent about staleness/uncertainty. It also gains the full response key surface, since no output schema exists. It still omits auth/tenancy scope and whether the response is per-account or per-user.

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 purpose and endpoint are front-loaded well, but the tail is a 17-item comma-separated key dump that is hard to scan and largely restates field names without explaining them. It is functional padding rather than wasted space, but it is not tight prose.

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 enumerated return keys are necessary and the description supplies them, plus an accuracy caveat — enough for an agent to call this zero-required-param read tool correctly. The gap is that the keys are listed without meaning and the mutation-free but openWorld nature of the call is not elaborated.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (extra_query, response_format) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about either parameter — no note on which extra query keys are meaningful for this endpoint or when to prefer json over markdown.

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 ('List accounts info') and backs it with the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/accounts/info), and the enumerated return keys make clear this is account-level configuration/feature data rather than a client list. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like singleops_read_get_qbo_status or singleops_read_list_account_settings_options_quickbooks.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no stated prerequisites, no condition selecting this over the QBO status or account settings options siblings. The only guidance-ish sentence ('confirm results') is a reliability caveat, not a usage rule.

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