List a connector’s accounts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces and expands on this by stating 'Read-only, free' and explaining that only the ticked accounts can be posted to or spent from. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 core purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded in the first sentences, and the additional context about user selection and read-only behavior earns its place. However, the long provider list duplicates the schema enum, adding redundancy that keeps it from a perfect 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, output concept (available identities and brand permissions), provider scope, usage ordering, and safety. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool appropriately.

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 fully describes the single provider parameter with an enum and 'which connector’s accounts to list'. The description repeats the provider list but adds no deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource (connector accounts/identities) and goes beyond a generic list by explaining it reveals both every identity a connected account can act as and which ones the current BRAND is allowed to use. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connectors or platform-specific list_meta_pages.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Call this before set_connector_accounts' and instructs the agent to let the USER pick and never guess. It provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or compare it to alternative list tools beyond set_connector_accounts.

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