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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect (prevents sign-in), the return format (updated summaries and total count), a prerequisite (get_connected_accounts), and cost. It does not mention reversibility or auth requirements, but these are not critical for basic use.

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 four short, information-dense sentences covering the action, prerequisite, return value, and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary 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?

Given an output schema exists and parameters are fully described, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: effect, return, prerequisite, and cost. It could optionally mention that unban_users reverses the action, but it is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description largely mirrors the schema's own parameter descriptions (e.g., clerk_instance_id). It adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool bans one or more Clerk users and prevents them from signing in, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clerk.unban_users and clerk.delete_user by focusing on the ban action and its immediate effect.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first and explains how to target a specific connection or use the default account. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like unban_users or delete_user, but the context is clear and actionable.

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