List connected Google accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (email, default status) and implies a read-only operation through 'List all.' However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe and non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication prerequisites or response format beyond the fields listed. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List all connected accounts') and adds essential detail ('with their email and default status'). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It states what is returned (email and default status), implying a collection result. It doesn't mention the exact return format or any edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient. A slight gap is the lack of explicit statement that it lists all accounts across all connections, though 'all connected accounts' conveys that.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (effectively no parameters). According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and the absence of any parameter mention is acceptable.

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: 'List all connected accounts with their email and default status.' It identifies the resource (connected accounts) and the specific action (list all). It differentiates from siblings like google_account_add/remove/set_default by indicating a read operation, but does not explicitly contrast with google_account_status, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning that it should be used when you need an overview of all accounts, or that google_account_status might be used for a single account. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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