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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the scope ('accounts this API key has access to') and the output contents (id, name, slug, owner status). The 'list' wording clearly indicates a read-only operation, and no side-effect concerns are relevant for this simple 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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds useful detail about entry contents. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed and what fields each entry contains. It does not need to explain return values or parameter behavior, and the sibling tool names provide sufficient context.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4.

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 accounts accessible by the API key, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('accounts'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools whoami and switch_default_account, but the action and scope are evident, making this strong but not fully differentiated.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to enumerate accounts) but offers no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tools are different in purpose, but the description does not actively direct the agent toward this one.

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

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the switch affects all subsequent tool calls, which is not immediately obvious from the tool name. It also clarifies the accepted account format (slug or UUID). However, it does not mention error handling, persistence, or authentication requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It captures the essential behavior and side effect. It could hint at using list_accounts to obtain valid slugs, but this is inferable from sibling context.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type (string), with zero schema-level description. The description compensates by specifying the expected format ('slug or UUID') and giving an example, which is critical for correct usage.

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 ('Switch') and clearly identifies the resource ('active account') and scope ('for all subsequent tool calls'). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like whoami and list_accounts, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the usage context by stating that the switch affects all subsequent tool calls, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as first listing accounts with list_accounts. The guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool reveals identity, active account, and permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it implies a non-mutating read operation but does not explicitly state no side effects or prerequisite authentication, though the verb 'Show' makes this clear.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds practical usage guidance without fluff. Every sentence 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?

The description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It doesn't explicitly compare with siblings, but the 'use this first' guidance provides context. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters. Baseline for zero params is 4, and nothing more is needed.

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 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource: current API user's identity, active account, and permissions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts and switch_default_account, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first' to understand the account and permissions, providing a clear when-to-use directive. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contextual guidance is clear enough for a 0-parameter tool.

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