account_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the possible token states (ok / expired_refreshable / needs_reauth / missing / decrypt_error), which tells an agent what follow-up actions might be warranted, though it omits auth requirements or ordering caveats.

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 sentences with no filler; the returned-field inventory is front-loaded and the verbose option is tucked at the end as the only optional action. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself — and it does so by listing the concrete per-account fields and token status values. For a zero-required-parameter, one-optional-parameter read tool, nothing needed to invoke or interpret it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the verbose parameter beyond the schema text: instead of a generic 'full scope report' it specifies 'granted vs configured scopes', clarifying what the richer output actually contains. That is real added meaning over the structured field.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list configured Google accounts) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: alias, email, admin flag, token status, and default marker. An agent can distinguish this from account_add, account_reauth, or account_write_config without opening any schema.

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 its usage (enumerate accounts) and gives one conditional instruction — pass verbose: true for the full per-account report — but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like diagnose or account_reauth, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guiding.

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