list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'from discover cache,' indicating the data is cached, and specifies the type of data (active campaigns, balance). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. For a listing tool, read-only is likely, but it is not stated. The description provides some behavioral context but falls short of full transparency.

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 conveys the key data points. It is front-loaded with the source (cache) and the main outputs. It is efficient with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description only needs to clarify purpose and usage. It provides some context (what data is returned) but lacks any guidance on when to use it versus siblings. For a simple listing tool, the missing usage guidance is a notable gap. The description is adequate but incomplete.

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 schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter information is missing or ambiguous.

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 lists what the tool returns (accounts from cache, active campaigns, balance) but does not clearly state the action (listing). It is more of a summary of output than a purpose statement. It avoids a pure tautology by adding details, but it is not a specific verb+resource description. The name 'list_accounts' hints at the action, so an agent could infer it, but the description itself is vague.

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 sibling tools (search_actions, describe_action, run_read, plan_write, apply_write, get_operation_log) suggest different operation types, but the description does not differentiate or recommend one. An agent would have to guess based on the name alone.

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