ig_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description usefully discloses the shape of the payload (three distinct collections), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the blocklist is returned in full — modest added value.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, and the most important element (the list of configured accounts) is front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or title.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description's enumeration of the three returned collections is close to sufficient. It only stops short of the full mark because there is no guidance on how the three collections relate (e.g. whether the active account appears redundantly in the configured list).

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The sentence correctly implies a no-argument, whole-state read.

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 specific verb ('Lista') and enumerates the exact resources returned: configured accounts, the active account, and the blocklist. This is materially more informative than the bare tool name, though it never names the sibling ig_use_account (the account-switching counterpart) to sharpen the distinction.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is mentioned despite ig_use_account, ig_profile, and ig_account_insights living in the same namespace. The agent must infer from the noun alone that this is the discovery/configuration read tool rather than the switching or profiling one.

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