list_connected_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states this is a read-only listing, scopes the data to accounts connected to the LazyRelay account, and discloses the output fields (platform, display name, id). It does not discuss auth or errors, but the read-only nature is explicit through the verb 'List' and the output description.

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?

One sentence contains the action, scope, output contents, and a cross-reference to schedule_post with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it specifies what is listed, the account scope, and the fields returned. No output schema or annotations are needed to call this tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that one returned field is the id required by schedule_post, which helps the agent understand the purpose of the output even though no input parameter needs explanation.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'every social media account connected to this LazyRelay account', and it names the returned fields. This makes it impossible to confuse with sibling tools like list_scheduled_posts or schedule_post.

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 phrase 'the id needed by schedule_post' clearly signals one main use case: retrieving account IDs before scheduling. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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