list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a non-mutating list operation by saying 'List all' and explains what is returned. It does not discuss pagination, ordering, or access requirements, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool these omissions are minor.

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 three sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, the return payload is summarized concisely, and the usage guidance is a clear directive. Every sentence adds 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 list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, what accounts include, and how the tool should be used within a workflow. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the output even though no parameters need explanation.

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 action ('List all tracked LinkedIn accounts') and identifies the exact resource ('companies and profiles in the database'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools that operate on posts, people, or comments.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'ALWAYS call this first to discover what accounts are available and learn the correct slugs to use in other tools.' This clearly tells an agent when to invoke it, though it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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