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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape ('Returns test_runs summaries plus total_count'), the cost, and the need to call get_connected_accounts first. It does not mention pagination details or status filter behavior, but these are visible in the schema, and the tool is a simple list operation.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisite, return value, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundant detail.

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 presence of an output schema and the clear prerequisite, the description is complete enough for a list operation. It could elaborate on interpreting test run statuses, but the schema already documents the status filter, and the return type is stated.

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 covers all 5 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for clerk_instance_id (target a specific connection or default account) but does not enrich the other parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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 lists 'SAML or OIDC debug test runs for an enterprise SSO connection', using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_enterprise_connections (lists connections themselves) and create_enterprise_connection_test_run (creates runs).

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first.' It also explains when to pass clerk_instance_id versus omit it. Though it doesn't name alternative tools directly, the guidance clarifies the expected calling pattern and context.

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