list_token_accounts

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

The description adds one behavioral cue ('admin-key gated') beyond the tool name, indicating an access control restriction. However, it omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as read-only nature, pagination, or rate limits. Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden and only partially fulfills it.

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, efficient sentence containing only essential information. It avoids redundancy or extraneous detail, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's core function.

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 and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It communicates the resource type and an access constraint, which suffices for basic usage. Minor improvements could include a note on default scope or result volume, but the current form is adequate.

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, so the input schema is trivially covered at 100%. According to the calibration rule for 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist, and it does not detract from clarity.

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 'List lzt-eventus token accounts', using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('token accounts'), with a scope qualifier ('admin-key gated'). This succinctly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or list_flows, which target different resources.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'admin-key gated' hints at an authentication requirement, it does not clarify scenarios such as when to use this over list_catalog or list_dynamic_methods, nor does it mention prerequisites or preferred contexts.

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