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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (id, name, slug, members_count, created_at, total_count) and the token cost, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error cases or pagination behavior, which are relevant for a 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, each sentence adds value without redundancy. The description is efficient and easy to scan.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description covers prerequisites, return fields, and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention pagination strategies for large result sets.

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 practical guidance for clerk_instance_id (target specific connection or use default) and mentions the query filter intent, going slightly beyond the schema's parameter 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 organizations in a connected Clerk application, using the specific verb 'list' and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_organization and list_organization_memberships by scope.

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 explicitly instructs calling clerk.get_connected_accounts first and explains how to use clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection or default. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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