check_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-call behavior are covered. The description adds that scope is all connected accounts, but says nothing about what happens with invalid accounts, whether crediting is refreshed, or how long a network sweep takes — notable given openWorldHint.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. Nothing in it could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but there is no output schema and the description never says what a check yields — a per-account validity list, a boolean, or thrown errors on failure. That return-shape gap matters for an agent deciding whether to call this before other account-scoped operations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the empty schema leaves nothing to clarify. The description correctly implies an all-accounts scope with no filtering argument, matching the 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 states a specific verb ("checks") plus resource ("every connected account") and the property being verified ("still has valid access"), which is meaningfully distinct from list_accounts. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the split between listing and validating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of list_accounts or connect_account as alternatives. The only implied cue is the word "every," which signals a bulk sweep rather than a single-account probe.

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