Check which accounts are ready

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does enumerate exactly what gets inspected, implying a read-only probe, but never says whether it makes live network/auth calls, whether it can be slow or rate-limited, or whether it mutates anything — and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence listing all checked surfaces with no filler. Slightly list-heavy phrasing but every clause names a distinct account source.

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, so the description should convey what comes back — per-account status, pass/fail booleans, or remediation hints pointing to accounts_login. It lists the inspected targets but leaves the return shape undefined.

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 and the description correctly presents the check as parameter-free with a fixed enumeration of targets. Baseline 4 applies; nothing extra is needed.

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?

Specific verb ('Checks') plus concrete resources: Codex and Higgsfield CLI sign-in, ChatGPT web sign-in, Google account/plan tier on Flow, and JSON-defined sites. It's clearly a status/readiness probe rather than the login action performed by the sibling accounts_login, though it doesn't name that sibling 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?

No statement of when to call it versus accounts_login, nor any prerequisite or exclusion (e.g. 'run before generation to verify auth'). Readiness gating is only weakly implied by the title 'Check which accounts are ready'.

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