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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully discloses what is returned (name, client_id, connection time, last-active time) and that 'current marks the one calling', which helps the agent interpret the result. It stops short of stating ordering or whether the list is exhaustive, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: scope, examples, returned fields, and the special 'current' flag.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it does so by listing the key fields and the 'current' marker. For a no-argument read tool this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around ordering and whether pagination applies.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 ('Agents connected to this AimYear account') and enumerates the concrete clients (Claude, ChatGPT, Claude Code, the AimYear app). It also names the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_devices or list_social_accounts without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool lists connected agents, so an agent can infer when to call it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_devices, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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