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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and adds a cost note, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The prerequisite and token cost add some value, but significant transparency gaps remain.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides useful information: what the tool does, the prerequisite call, how to target an instance, and the cost. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is enough. It covers the prerequisite, parameter usage, default behavior, and cost. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing the clerk_instance_id format and default behavior. The description reinforces this by restating the usage, but adds limited extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve organization feature settings') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'organization feature settings' rather than general or communication/oauth settings. It unambiguously identifies what the tool retrieves and for which entity (a connected Clerk instance).

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 context: it instructs to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first and explains how to use the optional clerk_instance_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the prerequisite and default behavior are clearly stated, which is strong guidance for a simple tool.

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