List sub-accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's restatement of 'Read-only' adds little. However, it does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: that credentials are redacted from results and that pagination is stateless with nothing persisted between calls.

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?

Front-loaded and tight: purpose first, then return fields, redaction, pagination semantics, and the read-only signal in four compact sentences. The pagination sentence is the only one that earns negative value because its parameter names are wrong.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly the kind of compensation needed. It covers redaction and statelessness, but omits the active_only filter and misnames the pagination parameters, leaving a small but real gap.

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 coverage is only 67% (page is undocumented), so the description should compensate, but instead it names parameters that do not exist: 'pass page/per_page (or limit/offset)' while the schema defines page/size. This is actively misleading and the active_only filter is never mentioned, so the description would steer an agent toward invalid arguments.

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+resource ('List the sub-accounts under this Vobiz main account') and enumerates the returned fields (name, Auth ID, status, KYC mode, rate limit, permissions), which cleanly separates it from get_sub_account and create/update/delete_sub_account. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and scope but never stated: there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_sub_account (single record) or why to call it rather than another listing tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so it lands at the 'implied usage' level rather than explicit routing.

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