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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite, default account behavior, return contents, and cost (5 tokens), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error conditions, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a prerequisite and cost. Every sentence earns its place—no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already defined, and the description adds valuable context about prerequisites and targeting. It does not address potential errors or unconfigured connections, but given the tool's simplicity and strong schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 meaningful semantics for clerk_instance_id by explaining how to target a specific connection or fall back to the default, which goes beyond the schema's basic 'Clerk instance id' note. This boosts it to a 4.

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 ('List'), resource ('enterprise SSO (SAML/OIDC) connections'), and scope ('in a connected Clerk application'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_enterprise_connection and get_enterprise_connection by focusing on listing.

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 explicit usage guidance: calls clerk.get_connected_accounts first, and explains how to target a specific connection via clerk_instance_id or omit for default. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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