list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results include connection state and data volume, but says nothing about scope (all accounts vs. only served/active ones), result size, or ordering that the output schema may not convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource lead, and the payoff (state + volume) follows immediately; nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, and it correctly does not. It is nearly complete; the only shortfall is the missing distinction from session_status/check_whatsapp, which matters for selection in this sibling set.

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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The description appropriately focuses on what the listing returns rather than inventing parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with the described behavior.

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 and resource ('Liste les comptes WhatsApp') and even names what the listing surfaces — connection state and data volume. It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not differentiate itself from the semantically adjacent sibling 'session_status', which also concerns connection state.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call list_accounts or the related session_status/check_whatsapp tools for connection information, so it must infer selection entirely on its own.

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