Accounts List Accounts

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and 'List accounts' adds no behavioral detail beyond them. It does not disclose defaults for include_hidden/include_deleted, pagination, or the scope of accounts returned.

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 phrase is maximally terse and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with an optional filter object and three output modes, so the brevity reads more like a label than a helpful definition.

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 required parameters, strong read-only annotations, and self-describing schema fields, an agent could make a basic call safely. But with no output schema and no description of hidden/deleted defaults or how filters interact, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 description contributes nothing to parameter understanding; fields and output_mode carry their own schema descriptions, while filters is left to inference from its property names. At 67% schema coverage, a description could add value but does not.

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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('accounts'), and the plural form distinguishes it from the singular accounts_get_account and the metrics-oriented accounts_get_* tools. It is terse but unambiguous about the core purpose.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus accounts_get_account or the reporting/balance sibling tools. An agent must rely entirely on the tool name and sibling set to infer the right context, which the description does not support.

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