accounts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' conveys a non-mutating, read-only operation, and 'whether each refresh token still works' adds diagnostic context about what the tool reports. It does not mention whether checking tokens triggers network calls, but for this simple tool the behavior is reasonably clear.

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?

A single sentence conveys the action, resource, and purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource and immediately states what the tool reports.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return values or prerequisites. It fully covers purpose and behavior for a simple listing operation.

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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 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 ('List') and a clear resource ('connected Gmail addresses') while adding a distinct purpose: checking whether refresh tokens still work. This differentiates it from account management siblings like accounts_add, accounts_remove, and accounts_auth_start, and from status tools like gmail_status.

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 read-only listing and token-status wording imply it should be used for an account/token overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. For a simple zero-parameter list tool, this is adequate but minimally guided.

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