List Accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the detail that nested sub-accounts are included, which is helpful, but it does not mention pagination, account limits, or permission requirements. These omissions leave critical operational context unknown to the agent.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List all accessible accounts') and then adds a clarifying detail about nested sub-accounts. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 and an output schema available, the description covers the essential information: it enumerates accessible accounts and notes nested sub-accounts. It does not address any limitations or edge cases, but for a simple listing tool, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps exist regarding potential auth or filtering, but these are not critical for a zero-parameter call.

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 no parameters, so the schema fully covers the input structure. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given there are none. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'all accessible accounts', adding specificity by including nested sub-accounts. This distinguishes it from the sibling performance and report tools, which focus on metrics rather than account enumeration. An agent can immediately grasp the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_gaql, which could also retrieve accounts via queries. The description does not mention when this simple listing is preferred or when a custom query would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer the intended use case.

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