accounts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so excellently. It reveals that token validity is proven by live refresh, that 'null' means Google was unreachable, that a dead account includes a 'status' and 'detail' field, and that the token file existing is not sufficient. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool lists, and the second sentence adds crucial interpretation details without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the meaning of the key output field ('authorized'), edge-case behavior when Google is unreachable, and the presence of status/detail fields for dead accounts. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret its result correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics instead, which is the only relevant aspect for invocation.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: configured Google accounts and the working state of each token. It also adds the key detail that 'authorized' status is verified by refreshing the token, which distinguishes this tool's purpose from merely enumerating account names.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear: use it to check configured accounts and token validity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but among the sibling tools none overlap with this account-listing functionality, so the absence of explicit exclusions is acceptable.

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