neurover_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context that passwords are never returned, which tells the agent what it cannot retrieve here. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens with zero configured accounts, so it is additive but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the resource and immediately parenthesizes the one important caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing that could be trimmed.

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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the essentials are present: what it lists and that secrets are excluded. However, with no output schema, the description leaves the returned fields (ids, names, statuses) and any result-size or empty-list behavior entirely to inference.

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 no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments such as filters, which would mislead the agent.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Список настроенных аккаунтов Neurover" = list of configured Neurover accounts), so an agent knows it enumerates accounts rather than modifying them. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings such as neurover_account_overview, neurover_account_settings or neurover_auth_status, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a dense sibling set of account-related tools (account_settings, account_overview, auth_status, profile). The agent must infer that this is the enumeration call and that the others are configuration or status calls.

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