list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists accounts with authorization status, which implies read-only behavior, but it doesn't state whether this involves network latency, authentication requirements, or what 'authorization status' means in practical terms. The inclusion of an output schema helps, but behavioral detail is thin.

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 extremely compact - two short sentences that state the purpose and the return content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. This is exemplary conciseness for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return scope. It names what is returned (accounts with authorization status). It could be slightly more explicit about that this complements list_calendars, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, this is largely complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately compensates by describing the output scope.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('configured accounts') and adds the scope of 'authorization status.' It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_calendars, but the resource is clearly accounts rather than calendars, so differentiation is reasonably implied. A clearer sibling distinction or mention of purpose would push this to 5.

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 a simple enumeration use case ('list all configured accounts') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or distinctions from related tools like list_calendars or list_organizations. The context of checking account authorization status is implied but not stated as a scenario.

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