mfc_ca_getConnectedAccounts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only operation through '取得します' and usefully states that both automatic and manual integration types are included. However, it does not describe the returned payload shape, possible empty results, error behavior, or authentication needs.

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 concise Japanese sentence with no filler. The action and scope are stated directly and the key qualifier is included without unnecessary wording.

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 parameterless getter, the description is close to minimally viable, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without information about the return structure or edge cases. The meaning of '連携サービス' is also underspecified relative to the broader set of sibling tools.

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 in the input schema, so parameter semantics are vacuous. The schema already fully documents this, and the description has nothing meaningful to add about parameters. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 '取得します' (retrieves) and identifies the resource as '連携サービス', adding a scope qualifier '自動連携・手動管理とも' (both automatic linkage and manual management). This makes the basic purpose clear, though it does little to distinguish it from similarly named sibling getters like mfc_ca_getAccounts, and '連携サービス' vs the tool name 'ConnectedAccounts' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as mfc_ca_getAccounts, mfc_ca_getSubAccounts, or mfc_ca_getJournals. The appropriate context is only implied by the resource name; there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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