list_channel_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful permission-scope note ('within your permissions') and clarifies the domain role of Channel Accounts. However, it does not disclose operational behaviors such as pagination behavior, return shape, or how deleted sub-accounts affect counts, so it adds only modest value 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, with the action, resource, and permission scope front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides useful domain context without redundancy. There is no filler and no unnecessary repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 read-only list endpoint with 8 optional parameters that are fully described in the schema and no required inputs, the description covers the essential operational context: what is listed and under what permissions. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and no description of the response shape, but those are relatively minor for a straightforward list operation.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters already have individual descriptions and default values where applicable. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that the listing is unfiltered by default. This matches the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('Channel Accounts'), and a scope ('within your permissions'), which makes the primary purpose clear. It also adds a short definition of Channel Accounts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_channel_account or list_sub_accounts, but the resource term and list verb make confusion unlikely.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_channel_account for a single account or list_sub_accounts for sub-accounts. The phrase 'within your permissions' hints at access constraints, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction, leaving the agent to infer the right context from the tool name and schema.

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