Get Connected Accounts

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. The phrase 'connected tool accounts/credentials' adds some context about the resource scope, but it doesn't mention additional behavioral details like authentication, pagination, or response format.

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 one short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized with no filler.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about what 'connected tool accounts' includes, and no alternatives are mentioned, which could matter given the large number 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions (user_id is described as 'User id'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's use of 'a user's' corresponds to user_id but adds no additional semantic detail.

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 action (list) and resource (user's connected tool accounts/credentials). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like lyzr_credential_list or lyzr_list_provider_credentials_by_type, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other credential-listing tools. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be called.

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