List accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the returned fields and the username sort order. It omits important operational behavior — the default limit of 100 (silent truncation) and the regex semantics of search — which materially affect result interpretation.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload fields and ordering. Nothing is redundant and no filler phrases are present.

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 6-parameter, filterable, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned but not the pagination contract, the default 100-item cap, or the regex-vs-exact search distinction. The annotations carry the safety profile, but result-shaping behavior is only partially disclosed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the search, exact, suspended, or pagination parameters, but it also has no gap to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List cPanel accounts') and enumerates the salient returned fields (main domain, plan, owner, disk usage, suspension status). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like whm_get_account (single account) or whm_list_domains (domain-centric listing), but the scope is unambiguous enough to select on.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though several siblings overlap (whm_list_domains, whm_get_account, whm_account_resource_usage). The description never hints that the tool supports filtering by search/exact/search_type/suspended, so an agent could easily miss the tool's main selection power.

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