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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation's mutation nature ('Create'), returns a summary, and notes a token cost. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or error conditions, which are relevant for a create operation. The cost disclosure adds some value, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a prerequisite and usage note, a return-value sentence, and a token cost. No wasted words; every sentence contributes essential information and is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered. The description provides the key prerequisite of calling get_connected_accounts first and explains how to select an instance. For a create tool with 7 parameters, the schema fully documents inputs, and the description adds operational context (prerequisite, cost), making it sufficiently complete. It could mention failure modes or uniqueness constraints, but these are not essential.

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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter individually described. The description reiterates the clerk_instance_id parameter's purpose but adds no new information beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Create a new organization in a connected Clerk application.' It clearly identifies the resource (organization) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_organization_domain or create_organization_membership, avoiding ambiguity among the many create_* tools.

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 explicitly instructs to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first, establishing a prerequisite. It also explains how to select the target connection via clerk_instance_id, with a fallback to the default account. This gives clear context for when and how to invoke the tool, though it doesn't elaborate on when not to use it or alternative tools.

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