accounts_list

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry transparency burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires prior authentication, indicates read-only nature, or describes the output format. For a simple list tool, this may be sufficient, but it could be more informative.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of account names/IDs) or any prerequisites. For a minimal tool, this is acceptable but could be more thorough.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the scope (Google and Bing accounts). With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description meets that by providing meaningful context.

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 clearly states the tool lists all authorized Google and Bing accounts. It uses a specific verb ('List') and specifies the resource ('authorized Google and Bing accounts'), distinguishing it from siblings like accounts_add_site and accounts_remove.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for listing accounts, but does not provide exclusion criteria or mention situations where other tools would be more appropriate. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but not helpful.

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