List a connector’s accounts

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the tool is 'free' (cost implication) and that it returns a selection state per account ('ticked ones'). It also emphasizes user choice over automation, which is useful behavioral context beyond the raw annotations.

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 long but well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then explains what results look like, gives usage order, and lists providers. The provider list is redundant with the schema but not excessively so. The content is front-loaded with the most important information (including the instruction to call before set_connector_accounts).

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (accounts with allowed flags), how to use it (before set_connector_accounts, let user pick), and that it is read-only and free. It does not detail the exact response structure, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents the single provider parameter with a full enum and a description (coverage 100%). The description repeats the provider list without adding new semantics about how to choose a provider or any provider-specific constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully covers the parameter.

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 clearly states the verb (Show) and the resource (every identity a connected account can act as and which ones are allowed). It distinguishes itself from set_connector_accounts by explicitly positioning itself as the prerequisite call, and from list_connectors (which lists connectors, not accounts). The provider list enumerates the scope precisely.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call it before set_connector_accounts and to let the USER pick, never guessing. This provides clear when-to-use guidance relative to a specific sibling. It does not discuss when not to use it or mention other alternatives like list_connectors, but the core sequencing is well covered.

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