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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it states the operation is a read-only listing, explicitly discloses the output fields, mentions the cost as 0 tokens, and even reveals that agents cannot complete the connection flow themselves. This gives the agent a complete picture of the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the output, then the error/edge case, and finally the cost. Each sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler. The information is easy to parse and directly actionable for an agent.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the result, what to do if there are no connected accounts, and the cost. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds relevant context about how to use the output (e.g., using 'clerk_instance_id' in future calls), which is valuable. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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's purpose: 'List Clerk applications connected to the authenticated Vee3 account.' It specifies the resource (Clerk applications) and the verb (list), and it differentiates itself from other Clerk tools by focusing on connection discovery. The description also lists the key return fields, making it unmistakable what the tool produces.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to use 'clerk_instance_id' on future Clerk calls or omit it for the default account. It also explains the failure mode when no accounts are connected, instructing the agent to ask the user to connect manually and then call the tool again. This clearly indicates when and how to use the tool, including what to do in the empty-account edge case.

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