list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by mentioning 'local token state' and directing the agent to call it first, which goes beyond a bare read-only label. The meaning of '(unconfigured)' is slightly ambiguous, but it does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence: it states the action and resource, then gives the procedural instruction 'Call this first.' There is no wasted wording or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 no-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description conveys what the tool lists and when to invoke it. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact shape of the returned token state could help, but the summary-level description is likely adequate for call selection.

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 input schema is empty, so schema coverage is complete by default. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter semantic gap for the description to fill.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List configured accounts and local token state.' This clearly distinguishes list_accounts from sibling tools, which deal with labels, messages, threads, and drafts rather than account-level state.

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 phrase 'Call this first' gives explicit procedural guidance, telling the agent this is the entry point before other operations. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling appears to be a viable substitute for listing accounts, so the guidance is sufficient.

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