list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals pagination behavior, the 1000-account safety cap, the meaning of the `truncated` flag, and even suggests a remediation (raise MAX_PAGES). This goes well beyond a generic summary and gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's behavior.

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 wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the implementation detail is neatly parenthesized. Every clause adds value, from the scope ('ALL') to the practical advisory about MAX_PAGES.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it lists, the paging cap, and the `truncated` flag. It does not describe the shape of the returned accounts (e.g., IDs, names), which might be inferred from typical listing tools, but for a 0-param tool, the description is sufficient for a correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema contains no parameter documentation. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none. It does mention the output field `truncated`, which is not a parameter but does add context about the response.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'List ALL advertiser accounts visible to the authenticated user'. It names a specific verb and resource, and the emphasis on 'ALL' distinguishes it from account-specific tools like get_account_info. The implementation note ('paged SearchAccounts under the hood') adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it clearly implies the scope: this is for listing all accounts, not for retrieving a single account's details. It provides practical usage guidance about the `truncated` flag and the MAX_PAGES safety cap, telling the agent what to do if that occurs. However, it could be more explicit about when to prefer this over get_account_info.

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