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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for a prior connection call, the return shape ('waitlist entry summaries and total_count'), and even the token cost. It does not mention side effects, but as a list operation none are expected; the connection prerequisite and cost add valuable behavioral context.

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, focused sentences. It front-loads the primary action, then provides prerequisite, parameter guidance, return info, and cost in a logical order. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the description need not detail return fields; it still notes the key return components. The description covers the essential operational context (connection prerequisites, instance selection, cost) and relies on the rich input schema for parameter details. It is complete for a list tool, though slightly more detail on pagination could push it higher.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the role of clerk_instance_id (target a specific connection or default) and framing all parameters within the context of a connected Clerk application. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 a clear verb+resource statement: 'List waitlist entries in a connected Clerk application.' This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users, create_waitlist_entries, or invite_waitlist_entry. The scope (connected Clerk application) is also made explicit.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first') and explains how to choose between instances ('Pass clerk_instance_id... or omit it to use the default account'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but for a simple list operation the context is sufficient and unambiguous.

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