combell_accounts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool lists accounts and supports filtering, which is behavioral, but it does not explain pagination behavior, return shape, or any edge considerations. This is a useful but minimal addition over annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then defines the key term and names the filter options. Every phrase earns its place with 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?

Given the annotations cover safety and the schema fully documents parameters, the description provides enough domain context to invoke the tool: it defines what an account is and how to filter. It does not contrast itself with sibling list tools or describe the response format, but for a read-only list operation these are minor gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description mentions filtering by asset type and identifier, mirroring the schema; the 'usually the domain name' hint adds little beyond the schema's own 'e.g. a domain name' example. This is baseline value with no substantial extra 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?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List Combell accounts'. The parenthetical defining accounts as 'instances of a servicepack' and the mention of filters by asset type or identifier distinguish it from related tools like accounts_get or domain_list, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: for listing accounts with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as using combell_accounts_get for a single account or servicepacks_list for servicepacks themselves. Usage is clear but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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