List configured accounts

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'Server-local: makes no API call.' It also discloses that the tool reveals whether writes are enabled and which account is active, which helps the agent reason about multi-account state without invoking the 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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and result fields, and every sentence contributes distinct information: returned fields, how account targeting works, and the local no-API-call behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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-only, server-local listing tool, the description is complete. It names the returned fields, explains how the account parameter works across other tools, and clarifies the relationship to use_account. No output schema is present, but the description already enumerates the observable result contents.

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 and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter surface to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List every FastBound account this server is configured for', and then enumerates exactly which fields are returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_account and use_account by covering the full set of configured accounts rather than a single account or an account-switching action.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: pass an alias or account number as `account` on any tool to target it, or use use_account to change the active account. It implies the tool's role in discovering available accounts and their aliases, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over get_account or list excluded alternatives.

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