whodb_platform_service_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by promising that keys never contain secrets (important for output handling) and that per-call workspace targeting does not mutate session defaults. Return format and pagination behavior remain undisclosed.

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, no filler; the resource and scope come first and the two caveats (no secrets, non-mutating targeting) follow. 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?

For a read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it establishes scope, safety of the payload, and targeting semantics. It omits result shape hints and permission requirements, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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. The description only restates workspace targeting, which the schema already explains in more detail. It also fails to clarify that several generic filters (type with 'transform trigger mode'/function language, deployed, schema_mode) are irrelevant to service accounts, which is the one gap the description could have closed.

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 service accounts') plus scope ('in the selected organization') and a security qualifier ('Keys never include secrets') that separates it from the secrets tool. It does not name a sibling list tool to differentiate against, so it lands just short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied and operational: 'Accepts workspace {host, org, project} for per-call targeting without changing defaults.' There is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative (e.g., org_members, team_members, secrets), nor any permission prerequisite. The workspace-targeting sentence is real guidance, but coverage is partial.

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