List configured accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it states credentials and token-file paths are withheld from the result and that no remote call is made, both of which are behavioral facts not derivable from the annotations alone.

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 short sentences, zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded and the two constraints (no secrets, no network) follow immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job sketching the return contents (labels, auth methods) and what is excluded. Safety is fully covered by annotations. Minor gap: no indication of result shape or ordering, though for a zero-parameter list tool this is not critical.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies; no compensating detail is needed.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List private account labels and configured auth methods') and clarifies what it does not return. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_account, which an agent may reasonably confuse with it.

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?

Implicit usage: the phrase 'Does not contact Kit' hints this is a local/offline inspection tool, and 'list' implies enumeration vs get_account's single fetch. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_account.

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