List a connector’s accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only ticked accounts can be posted to or spent from, and that the operation is 'free' (cost context), which goes beyond the safety profile. It does not describe return structure or pagination, but that is a minor gap given the 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 first sentence front-loads purpose effectively, but the description then lists all 25 provider values, duplicating the schema enum and consuming significant space without earning its place. The remaining sentences are concise and useful, but the redundancy reduces the overall structure score.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return. It does so conceptually: every identity a connected account can act as and which are allowed, with concrete examples of account types. It could specify the return format (e.g., IDs, names, flags) more explicitly, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% with an enum for the single required provider parameter. The description repeats the full provider list, which is redundant with the schema and adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: it shows every identity a connected account can act as, with examples of account types (Facebook Pages, Google Ads customers, etc.). It distinguishes itself from set_connector_accounts by instructing to call it first. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 says 'Call this before set_connector_accounts, and let the USER pick — never guess,' naming the alternative and the required workflow. It tells the agent when to use it and what to do with the result, leaving little to inference.

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