corymbus_list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it notes that custom tenant fields are returned as-is in each object, which is extra transparency about the response shape. No contradictory behavior is described.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding one relevant behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, rich schema, and readOnly annotation, the description is complete: it covers purpose, filters, and custom field behavior. No output schema is needed, and the absence of pagination details is compensated by schema descriptions.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters, including default values and filters. The tool description merely repeats a few filter names (nameContains, owner, activity) without adding meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Liste/recherche') and resource ('comptes (entreprises)'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools for contacts, opportunities, and activities. The mention of filters further clarifies its scope.

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?

The description provides clear context: this tool is for listing/searching account records, with specific filter parameters mentioned. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the resource-specific naming makes the intended use evident.

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