list_sub_accounts

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds value by specifying the return content: 'Returns sub-account details with template access counts.' This tells the agent what to expect in the output, which is not covered by the annotations or schema. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation; 'List' clearly indicates a read operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives usage context, and the third describes the return value. No redundant or filler wording. The purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, why to use it, and what it returns. There are no gaps that would leave an agent uncertain about invoking it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden on the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per the rubric. The description compensates by explaining what the result contains, which is sufficient given the lack of inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all sub-accounts (team members) for the main account.' It clarifies scope ('for the main account') and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sub_account, update_sub_account, and delete_sub_account by focusing on the listing action. The parenthetical '(team members)' removes ambiguity about what a sub-account is.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to see who has access and their template permissions.' It implies the purpose of auditing access. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the tool has no parameters and is a straightforward list operation, this is adequate guidance. A slight enhancement would be noting it's the read-only option among sub-account tools.

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