List connected accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: an account is a token plus an instance, and the same handle on two servers refers to two different people. It doesn't describe response shape or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read-only list this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the result, the second explains the federated account concept, and the third tells the agent how to consume the output. The most important scoping phrase 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, why the instance distinction matters, and how to use the result in other tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this score is appropriate; the description instead focuses on what will be returned.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it lists every Mastodon account the server can act as and the instance each account lives on. It also distinguishes this from a simple identity lookup by clarifying federated accounts, so an agent can tell it apart from tools like whoami or get_account.

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 description gives clear downstream context by telling the agent to use the handle from this tool as the account argument on any other tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is unambiguous for a zero-parameter list operation.

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