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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: it returns connected providers and report counts, and it excludes reports in the Deleted state from those counts.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key scope and return-shape details are packed efficiently into one sentence.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and return contents. A minor gap remains around ordering or whether results are always complete, but the annotations already cover safety and the description is mostly sufficient.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly does not spend space on parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing clients (brands/domains) in the CrunchJunkie workspace. It also names the enriched return contents (connected data-source providers and report counts), which clearly separates it from create_client, list_workspaces, and list_data_sources.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List the clients' and the workspace scope, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives such as list_workspaces or create_client. The reader can infer the context, but there is no explicit routing guidance or exclusion.

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