List Service Accounts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the admin requirement, the accepted auth mechanisms, and the explicit exclusion of API keys. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 what the tool returns and followed by the access constraint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it describes return contents in lieu of an output schema and covers the auth prerequisite. Only pagination/result-count behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage whose description already explains it comes from list-organizations. The description only restates 'in an organization' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List service accounts in an organization') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, descriptions, stored organization roles). It is clearly distinct from siblings like create-service-account and list-organization-members, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The one constraint given is real and useful, that the caller must be an org admin on a user session or OAuth and cannot use an API key, but that is a prerequisite rather than selection guidance.

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