Linked accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the guarantee 'Never returns secrets,' which is a valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations. No other behaviors are disclosed, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the safety guarantee is a concise addition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (providers with source and live status) and a key safety behavior. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to explain them. The baseline is high for a parameterless tool, and the description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 it returns linked providers with source and live status, which gives a specific resource and what it provides. It implies a read-only listing but does not explicitly say 'list' or 'get all accounts.' It distinguishes from siblings like accounts_connect and accounts_remove by implying a read operation, though not naming them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as accounts_connect, accounts_remove, or others. There are no conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it is for viewing accounts without any explicit direction.

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