list_accounts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful scoping context—'accessible' accounts and MCC-based discovery—but does not disclose return format, pagination, or configuration prerequisites. Given the annotation coverage, this is a reasonable level of added context.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without any filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a tool with no parameters and a simple discovery purpose.

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 list tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not explicitly state the return shape (e.g., list of account IDs and names) or mention that no filters are supported, but the tool's simplicity and clear focus keep the gap small.

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, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description's reference to 'configured MCC context' clarifies the implicit environment/context, but there are no parameter semantics that need explanation. Baseline of 4 for zero parameters 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('accessible Google Ads accounts'), and adds scope by mentioning the configured MCC context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns and get_account_details.

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 clearly implies an account-discovery context and gives the relevant environmental framing ('configured MCC context'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or mention exclusions, though the distinction is fairly obvious from the names.

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