list_offices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a display/read-only operation and what is displayed, but adds no detail about prerequisites, output format, or how 'active' connection state is determined. This is adequate but minimal.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and is immediately scannable.

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 parameterless list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description states the essential returned content: saved tokens and the active connection destination. It doesn't specify the exact return shape or define 'active', but the tool's simplicity makes this mostly sufficient.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description names a specific verb (表示する) and a clear resource (保存済みトークン（事業者）の一覧とアクティブな接続先), so an agent can tell this lists saved office tokens and the active connection. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like use_office or remove_office, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer that this should be called when it needs to see saved tokens/offices or the active connection. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives such as use_office are mentioned.

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