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 transparently describes the listing behavior, filtering options, defaults, and pagination limits (e.g., 'take: default 50, max 200'). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-oriented list tool the main behaviors are well disclosed.

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 immediately useful, front-loading the purpose before a clean, line-by-line Args section. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, every parameter, pagination defaults, and a pointer to a related tool for user lookup. The output schema handles return-value expectations, so no further detail is needed.

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%, but the description compensates exceptionally well. Every one of the 8 parameters is explained with types, examples, defaults, and constraints — e.g., 'search: partial match, e.g. Notino or Siemens' and 'take: default 50, max 200'. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'List accounts (companies/organizations)', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool's domain by noting 'Contacts belong to accounts', which helps disambiguate it from contact-related siblings.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for listing accounts) and even references a sibling tool ('Use list_users to find login names') for a specific sub-task. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_account or list_contacts, so it falls short of full 5.

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