List authorized Google accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly indicates a read-only action by using 'List,' and there are no side effects or hidden behaviors to disclose. However, it adds no context beyond the obvious purpose—no mention of what the output looks like, whether accounts are returned as emails, or if authorization status has any caveats. This is a baseline acceptable transparency for a simple read tool.

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, concise sentence: 'List the Google accounts that have been authorized for this server.' It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word earns its place. Properly sized for the tool's trivial parameter surface.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the AI agent exactly what the tool does, and because there are no parameters to configure or complex return values to explain, no additional information is needed. The context is fully covered by this single sentence.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain any parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4, and nothing in the description detracts from this. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'Google accounts that have been authorized for this server.' This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_folder, list_tabs, or list_comments, which target different resources. The phrasing is unambiguous and matches the title exactly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. It simply restates the purpose without context about scenarios where checking authorized accounts would be appropriate. There is no 'when to use' or 'instead' language.

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