list_standalone_accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral scoping: it only returns accounts from the sign-up form and excludes hierarchy-attached accounts, which clarifies the tool's filtering behavior beyond the annotation.

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 no redundant wording. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only the essential distinguishing context.

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?

With readOnlyHint, full schema documentation, and a clear scope statement, the description is strong. The absence of an output schema means return shape is not described, but for a straightforward list operation this is a minor gap.

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 the schema fully documents all 10 optional filter parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline 3 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Standalone Accounts' and adds two distinguishing details: these accounts are created through the WACM Standalone Account Sign-Up Form and are not attached to the WACM hierarchy. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_control_accounts and list_sub_accounts.

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 phrase 'created through the WACM Standalone Account Sign-Up Form' and 'not attached to your WACM hierarchy' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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