List FTP accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee—'Passwords are never returned'—which is not inferable from annotations and is important for an FTP account listing tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the password caveat is a valuable behavioral warning that earns its place.

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 straightforward read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key output constraint. It does not describe the full return shape or pagination behavior, but those are largely inferable from the schema and list semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (service, page, sortBy, descending, rowsPerPage) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the hosting-service context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List FTP accounts on a hosting service,' which clearly identifies the operation and scopes it to a hosting service. This also distinguishes it from the singular sibling ws_ftp_account_get, and the password caveat further clarifies what the operation does not return.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus ws_ftp_account_get or other list tools. It does not mention that a service identifier is required or how to obtain one, even though the schema references ws_service_list; an agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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