auth_list_available_accounts

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is known. The description adds valuable context about reading local CLI state only, not making live Entra ID queries, and not listing other users — which clarifies side effects and data source beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main action and scope are in the first sentence, and the important scoping boundary ('local CLI state only') is upfront in the second. Every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it tells the agent what is listed, under what condition, and what it does not do. No output schema is needed for invocation, and the description covers the key selection criteria.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools, and the description's reference to 'az login' clarifies the underlying prerequisite context.

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 opens with a specific verb (List) and resource (Azure subscriptions and tenants), and further scopes it to accounts the local user logged into via 'az login'. It also distinguishes itself from other auth tools by noting it reads local CLI state only and does not query Entra ID or list other users.

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: use this tool to enumerate locally authenticated Azure subscriptions and tenants. It states a when-not ('does not query Entra ID or list other users'), implicitly indicating this is not for live directory queries or user enumeration, but it does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly such as auth_get_current_account.

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