accounts_list

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

The read-only behavior is already indicated by the readOnlyHint annotation, but the description adds a valuable behavioral note that the tool does not involve OAuth or credential access. The phrasing 'List configured... accounts' also implies it only returns existing configurations without side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant or extraneous information. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then adds a short usage note, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what kind of result it produces (a list of accounts and delegated scopes, including opaque IDs). It also explains how to apply that result in later steps, providing sufficient context for an agent to use 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 input schema is empty, so 100% of parameters are covered by the schema. The description does not add parameter-level details because there are none to describe. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 lists configured personal Microsoft accounts and delegated scopes, with the verb 'List' specifying the action. It also differentiates this tool from credential-handling operations by explicitly noting it works without OAuth or credential access, and it clarifies the intended use of the output (choosing opaque account IDs for subsequent requests).

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 when to use this tool: it is the source for obtaining account IDs to be used in subsequent calendar and mail operations. It also warns that it does not handle OAuth or credentials, distinguishing it from auth-related tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide conditional logic for when to choose this over others.

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