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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Returns OAuth settings' and discloses a token cost, adding transparency. The phrase 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state that no changes are made. It also highlights a dependency on get_connected_accounts, which is helpful.

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 three brief sentences plus a cost note, all front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value—purpose, prerequisite, return, and cost. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 simple getter with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it retrieves, how to prepare (get_connected_accounts), and how to target an instance. It omits explicit error scenarios or comparison with the update counterpart, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already describes clerk_instance_id thoroughly, including its format and default behavior. The description's parameter guidance ('Pass clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection, or omit it to use the default account') largely mirrors the schema, adding minimal new information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no compensating detail is provided in the description.

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 opens with 'Retrieve OAuth settings for a connected Clerk instance,' using a specific verb and resource. It clarifies that this targets connected Clerk instances, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clerk.get_instance_settings and clerk.update_instance_oauth_settings. The name itself reinforces the OAuth scope.

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,' providing a clear prerequisite. It also explains how to target a specific connection via clerk_instance_id or fall back to the default account. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for modification (e.g., clerk.update_instance_oauth_settings) or state when not to use this tool.

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