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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description contributes new context: it 'returns documentation only' and never asks for or accepts secret values, which materially reassures an agent handling credential topics. Return format beyond 'documentation' is not detailed, but no output schema exists and the tool is trivial.

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 short sentences, purpose stated first, then the parameter note and the safety exclusion, then the version tag. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-required-param, read-only documentation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, what it does not do, and the version binding. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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% and the single optional mcp_version parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the exact required value. The description's 'No parameters required' and 'MCP version 2.12' corroborate the schema but add no semantics beyond it, so 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 ('read instructions') and a scoped resource ('AppDeploy's secure secret-entry workflow'), enumerating the covered topics: submission, status checks, app binding. An agent can distinguish it from create_secret_entry or get_secret_entry_status because it explicitly says it returns instructions rather than performing those actions. It does not name siblings, so a 4 rather than 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?

'Use this tool to read instructions...' plus the exclusion 'does not request or accept secret values' clearly marks the boundary against the actual submission tools. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, which keeps it out of 5 territory, but an agent will not misfire with it.

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