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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behavior: the prerequisite dependency on connected accounts, the default-account behavior when clerk_instance_id is omitted, and the token cost. It does not detail error cases or return structure, but the output schema covers return values, making this adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, parameter behavior, return value, and cost. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: prerequisite call, parameter guidance, and return type. It doesn't enumerate all possible edge cases, but that's not necessary given the low complexity and existing structured data.

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%, and the description essentially repeats the schema's parameter documentation ('Pass clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection, or omit it to use the default account'). Thus it adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves core settings for a connected Clerk application instance, using the specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'core settings'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clerk.get_instance_communication_settings and clerk.get_instance_oauth_settings by focusing on 'core' settings, and the prerequisite to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first adds further clarity.

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 clear usage context: call clerk.get_connected_accounts first, and explains how to target a specific connection or use the default by omitting the parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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