gtm_list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is a read-only listing scoped to the connected user, but it omits any details about pagination, returned data shape, or authentication/authorization requirements beyond the implied user connection.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices useful details that could have been included without harming brevity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and completely undocumented optional parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response contains, how connection_id or session_token behave, or what prerequisites exist. An agent is left with the bare purpose and no call-level guidance.

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 0% and the description does not mention connection_id or session_token at all. An agent cannot infer what these parameters mean, whether they are needed, or how to populate them. The description adds zero meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('GTM accounts'), and adds the scope 'accessible to the connected Google user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_list_containers and gtm_list_tags, though it does not explicitly name 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 provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools. It does not state that gtm_list_containers should be used for containers, or mention any selection or ordering logic among the list tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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