iaas_get_cloud_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the REST endpoint path; it says nothing about paging behavior, default ordering, whether the organization scope is derived from the auth token, or what a large-org response looks like. That is minimum viable against an annotation-covered read tool.

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?

Three lines, but the first line merely restates the tool name and the second nearly repeats it, and the raw endpoint path duplicates the annotation title 'GET /iaas/api/cloud-accounts'. Short, but with avoidable redundancy rather than added information.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not say what identifying fields come back, whether the collection is paginated by default, or the empty-result case. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the response shape.

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%, so all six parameters (top, skip, count, filter, select, apiVersion) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics — no example filter expressions, no note on how top/skip interact, no versioning caveat beyond pointing at the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get cloud accounts) and scopes it to 'all cloud accounts within the current organization', which implicitly separates it from the single-resource iaas_get_cloud_account. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many provider-specific list siblings (iaas_get_aws_cloud_accounts, iaas_get_azure_cloud_accounts, iaas_get_vsphere_cloud_accounts, etc.), so the agent must infer that this is the unfiltered cross-provider listing.

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 guidance on when to use this versus iaas_get_aws_cloud_accounts/iaas_get_vsphere_cloud_accounts or the singular iaas_get_cloud_account, and no mention of when filtering by type is preferable. Pagination is left entirely to the schema with no note about defaults or large result sets.

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