list_users_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the XML response format and the endpoint, which are useful but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations and provides some extra behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a two-word summary and an endpoint. Every token earns its place, and the key information (resource, format, path) is front-loaded with no filler.

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, read-only tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It includes the endpoint and format, which are essential. It could be improved by clarifying what 'Account' refers to and explicitly noting the relationship to the JSON sibling, but the low complexity makes the current text sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Account', and the XML note distinguishes it from the sibling list_users_account_json. It is clear enough, though it does not explain whose account or what fields are returned, leaving slight ambiguity about the resource's meaning.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The XML mention is an implicit hint for format preference, but there is no statement about when to choose this over list_users_account_json or other account-related tools like list_user and list_users.

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