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

The annotation only says readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: what the counts mean (usage_count clusters, application_count Applications, dependent_count total to weigh before deletion) and the important caveat that dependents are matched by credential name, so all credentials sharing a name are returned when ambiguous_credential_name is true. That name-matching ambiguity is a non-obvious trait an agent must know before deleting.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then field semantics. Dense but each sentence carries information; the 'Read-only' tail is slightly redundant with the annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining the returned counts and the name-ambiguity behavior, and it does so. Nothing essential for calling or interpreting this read-only dependency lookup is missing.

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% with a single documented credential_id (UUID), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the id itself, only about the returned fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List everything that depends on a GitHub credential') and spells out the two dependent kinds — clusters via GitOps repo and Applications via granted repositories. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_github_credential_activity (activity, not dependencies) and list_gitops_credentials.

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?

Explicitly says to 'use this before planning a credential replacement or deletion,' which names the triggering workflow and indirectly points at plan_github_credential_replacement/replace_github_credential. It does not name those siblings outright or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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