list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond annotations: it works even on a Stars cabinet, which is useful compatibility information for an agent deciding whether to call it in that state.

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 compact sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a valuable edge-case guarantee about Stars cabinets without wasting words.

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 parameterless list tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, scope, and an important compatibility condition, leaving no critical gaps for 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 takes zero parameters, and the schema has full coverage with an empty properties object. There is no parameter detail for the description to add, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 ad cabinets for this Telegram login.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools like get_account or select_account by indicating it returns a list and enables switching away from the current cabinet.

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 gives clear context: use it to see ad cabinets for the current login, and it works even on a Stars cabinet so you can switch away. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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