list_connected_accounts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: the connection state signal ('Accounts that need reconnecting say so') tells the agent the read can surface actionable auth problems.

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?

Two short sentences; the resource scope is front-loaded and the reconnect caveat is appended only after the core payload is stated. No filler or restated annotation boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does name platform, display name, the id, and the reconnect flag. It stops short of ordering, pagination, or what an empty list means, but for a zero-arg read tool this is close to sufficient.

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. The description correctly omits parameter discussion and instead spends its words on output contents, which is the right allocation.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('every social account connected to this LazyRelay account'), with the returned fields named. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_workspaces, list_pinterest_boards and the posting tools it feeds, so an agent can route to it without opening a 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement or named alternative. The phrase 'the id the posting tools need' implies this is a prerequisite lookup before scheduling/publishing, but the agent must infer that ordering and there is no guidance on duplicates or empty results.

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