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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the admin-only restriction, the required upstream secret-read scope, and that the read is audited – meaningful operational context for a sensitive operation. It does not describe error behavior when the scope is missing, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the audience restriction front-loaded, followed by the permission and audit facts. No filler or repetition.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers authorization and auditing. The only real gap is the absent detail on the transaction_id argument, which an agent would need to supply 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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden yet says nothing about transaction_id's expected format, source, or whether it comes from middleware_list_transactions. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read a protected transaction secret via the middleware API. That distinguishes it from middleware_get_transaction, which returns the transaction rather than its secret. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 'Middleware admin only' qualifier gives a clear audience and the mention of a required secret-read scope implies prerequisites, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus middleware_get_transaction or middleware_list_transactions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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