marketplace_list_developer_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that — that secret fields in partner-system metadata are redacted — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume for what is clearly a collection-returning call.

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, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the redaction caveat trailing it. Every clause 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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description carries the descriptive burden and does cover scope and the redaction behavior. It stops short of mentioning pagination or the general shape of what is returned, which matters for an open-world list tool, but it is largely adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 and resource (list developer accounts) plus an ownership scope (owned by the current Altegio user), which distinguishes it from sibling mutations like create_developer_account, update_developer_account and delete_developer_account. It does not, however, contrast itself with other listing tools (e.g., marketplace_list_applications), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus the many sibling listing/get tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as owning a developer account. Usage is only inferable from the name and the ownership phrasing; no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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