accounts_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description explicitly states that the tool never starts OAuth or reveals tokens. This provides important behavioral guarantees about side effects and privacy, enhancing transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the main action, then adds critical clarifications (no OAuth, no tokens) and a usage note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no verbosity.

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 simple listing tool, the description is complete. It states what is returned (accounts and scopes), what is not done (OAuth, tokens), and how the result is intended to be used (selecting an accountId). No essential information is missing given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 empty. According to the guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none, and the empty schema is fully covered.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing configured Google accounts and granted scopes. It also specifies what it does not do (never starts OAuth, never reveals tokens) and how the output is used (select an explicit accountId for subsequent actions). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used to list available accounts before selecting one for subsequent actions, which guides typical usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state conditions for when to use this tool over others. Still, the context is clear enough for a listing utility.

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