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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by explaining what the returned IDs are consumed for during provisioning, but it omits any auth/permission requirements or result-shape hints beyond that.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns before the usage guidance. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but every clause carries usable 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 read-only, single-optional-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and how the output is consumed. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, and the enum plus the 'ssh-key' special-case note are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter by provider to narrow results' largely restates the schema, so it adds little beyond it.

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 cloud provider credentials and SSH key credentials') and scopes to the user's organisation, which separates it from generic credential listings. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling list_credentials / list_gitops_credentials / list_helm_registry_credentials tools, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: call it before creating a cluster to obtain the credential_id and ssh_key_credential_id for provisioning. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but the usage context is explicit and actionable.

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