accounts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the returned fields and makes a security-relevant disclosure that key material is never returned. It does not mention auth requirements or whether the read is local-only, which are minor gaps for a zero-arg list.

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, and the most important constraint (never returns key material) is placed last as a clear boundary. Every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields, so an agent knows what it will get. Only auth/prerequisite context is absent, which is a minor omission for a local list operation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax and correctly does not attempt to.

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 (App Store Connect accounts registered locally) with a clear scope ('every account'). It is distinguishable from siblings like accounts_current by the 'every' scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 the tool is useful (inspecting locally registered accounts) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never routes the agent to alternatives such as accounts_current or accounts_switch. Usage is left to inference.

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