List account tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying the results are live external lookups whose contents vary by platform (Reddit flairs, Pinterest boards), but says nothing about rate limits, auth failures, or what happens for unsupported platforms.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core concept front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too short for the information an agent needs, but it is structurally clean.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description still leaves significant gaps: it never mentions accountId, never indicates the return shape (tool names? identifiers?), and never connects the list to run_account_tool. The annotation coverage helps, but the workflow linkage is absent.

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 0% and the single required parameter accountId is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'the account's platform' only weakly implies per-account scoping; no ID format or source is given to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 identifies the resource (per-account live lookups for the account's platform) and gives concrete examples, so an agent can tell this enumerates platform-specific tools. However, there is no explicit verb like 'list' and no direct contrast with run_account_tool, the sibling that actually executes these lookups, leaving the boundary between the two implicit.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions run_account_tool, which is presumably the consumer of this list, so the discovery-then-execute workflow has to be inferred entirely by the agent.

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