account_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by detailing the return fields and token health states, giving the agent a clear picture of what the tool reports. It does not discuss side effects, but for a read-only list operation, this is adequate.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and packs all key information: resource, fields, and usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns and when to use it. It covers the account fields and token health states, making the tool's behavior predictable and complete for its scope.

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 the schema is trivially covered. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists configured Google accounts and enumerates the specific fields returned (alias, email, admin flag, token health, scopes). This specific verb+resource usage distinguishes it from sibling discovery tools, which focus on API discovery rather than account listing.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to see which account aliases are available and healthy.' While it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and sufficient given the absence of similar account-listing siblings.

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