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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real context: already-linked accounts are omitted, sure matches are grouped automatically, and `maybe` matches require confirmation before inclusion.

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, front-loaded with what is grouped and what is excluded, then the when-to-use trigger, then the sure/maybe behavior. Dense but no sentence is filler; the platform enumeration is long but informative.

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, the description carries the burden of return shape and does so at a high level (grouped sure matches vs. a `maybe` list). It covers triggers, exclusions, and confirmation behavior adequately, though the exact structure of the grouped result is only sketched.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are missing or misleading.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: grouping reachable accounts across named platforms into likely CLIENTS by business name, excluding already-linked accounts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_clients, create_client, and list_connected_accounts.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when the agency has no clients yet, asks to add or set up a client, or after get_started says status is no_clients.' It also names a decision rule for ambiguous matches ('ask before including those'), leaving nothing to inference.

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