list_sub_accounts

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and clarifies the scope 'within your permissions,' which is useful context. It also warns via the parameter schema that includeKeys returns sensitive credentials and defaults to false. However, the description itself does not disclose behavior like pagination or whether deleted sub-accounts are excluded by default; that detail is only in the parameter descriptions. Overall, the description adds meaningful scope context 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that names the resource, the permission scope, and the return content. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It does not waste words, though it could have added a brief note about filtering or sensitive keys without becoming verbose.

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 operation with all parameters self-describing in the schema, the description gives a reasonable starting point. However, it lacks guidance on pagination behavior, default filtering (e.g., are deleted accounts excluded?), and how to interpret the parent account information. Since there is no output schema and this is a listing endpoint with 11 optional filters, a bit more context—such as noting that results are paginated or that filters can be combined—would make it more complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds a high-level summary of return contents but does not clarify parameter interactions, such as whether filters are combined or exclusive, or whether includeDeleted affects other filters. This does not go far beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all Sub-Accounts') and the resource (Wasabi Console accounts), and it mentions what is returned: account details, storage allocation, and parent account information. It distinguishes from a generic list by scoping to sub-accounts, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_channel_accounts or list_control_accounts by name.

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 implies usage: call this to list sub-accounts within your permissions. It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_sub_account for a single account' or 'use list_control_accounts for parent-level accounts.' The context is clear enough for a straightforward listing operation, but no direct guidance is given among the many sibling tools.

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