threads_list_accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety. The description adds behavior-specific context by saying secrets are excluded and by explaining that expires_at is a Unix timestamp where null means unknown; that is meaningful beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss auth or pagination.

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 short sentences are front-loaded with the core output, then usage, then a field clarification. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 no inputs, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation. The description supplies the essential purpose, routing context, and expiry-field meaning, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add anything about inputs.

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 and resource: list connected Threads accounts with IDs and token expiry, excluding secrets. It also names the sibling threads_get_profile as the downstream consumer of account_id, so an agent can distinguish this discovery tool from profile retrieval.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use after startup to find account_id for threads_get_profile. It does not state explicit exclusions or when to avoid it, which keeps it short of a 5, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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