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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: the prerequisite call, the return field 'scoped_machines', and the token cost. However, it does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements beyond the prerequisite, or any potential side effects (though none are expected for a read).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by essential prerequisite/parameter guidance and a note on return metadata. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 get-by-id tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, connection targeting, return field, and cost. It could mention what happens when the machine_id is invalid or not found, but the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reinforces that clerk_instance_id targets a specific connection and explains the prerequisite for obtaining valid IDs. It doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, but with full coverage, no compensation is needed.

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 a machine by id from a connected Clerk instance', which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_machines (listing) and get_machine_secret_key (secret retrieval).

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 gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first.' It also clearly explains when to include clerk_instance_id versus omitting it for the default account. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear.

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