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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing return fields, total_count, and cost in tokens. It also explains the default-account behavior and prerequisite. It does not mention pagination, but for a read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds essential information: prerequisite, parameter usage, return fields, and cost. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional param, output schema exists), the description is thorough. It covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, return data, and cost. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining where the clerk_instance_id comes from (get_connected_accounts) and what happens if omitted. This provides meaningful context for how to correctly populate the parameter.

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 JWT templates in a connected Clerk application, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the singular get_jwt_template and other list tools by specifying 'in a connected Clerk application' and enumerating the returned fields.

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 guidance: call clerk.get_connected_accounts first, and explains how to target a specific connection or default account. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives like get_jwt_template, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this list operation.

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