check_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it drives a real Chrome browser, opens platform upload pages, and closes the tabs afterward. It says nothing about failure modes if Chrome is unavailable or no user is logged in, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Roughly three short lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the parameter note and return shape. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a real output schema defining the return shape, the description gives everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the environmental precondition (Chrome must be available/authenticated) is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only offers an untyped string array with a null default. The description compensates well by naming the accepted values ("youtube", "facebook", "tiktok") and mapping the null default to "all". It does not address invalid or mixed-case platform strings.

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: opens each platform's upload page in Chrome and reports the logged-in account, plus the cleanup detail (tabs are closed after). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings (publish, publish_batch), though it never names them 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?

The pre-publish/preflight use case is implied by the 'which account is logged in' framing, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus status or history, nor any prerequisite such as a running Chrome session.

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