list_mail_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a security-relevant trait ('Does not expose account passwords') and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens when no accounts exist.

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, purpose front-loaded before the security caveat, with no filler or restated schema text.

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 should ideally sketch the return shape (IDs, names) and pagination, which it does not. What it does cover — purpose and the password caveat — is accurate but leaves an agent guessing about result structure and paging.

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 0% and the description never mentions the two parameters (page, page_size). For a paginated list tool, pagination semantics are relevant and are left entirely undocumented in both places.

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 ('List') and resource ('mail accounts'), plus the downstream purpose of obtaining an account ID for mail rules. It implicitly separates itself from get_mail_account (singular) and list_mail_rules, though it never names the alternative.

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 tells the agent why one would call it (to get an account ID for mail rules), which is useful implied guidance, but it gives no when-not-to-use condition and never points to a sibling for fetching a single account's details.

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