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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information the annotations cannot convey: that secret values are never returned, and which status values to expect. No mention of error behavior for an unknown or already-expired id.

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, front-loaded with the action and the non-disclosure guarantee. The trailing 'MCP version 2.12.' is a fragment but is functional, reinforcing what belongs in the mcp_version parameter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must indicate what comes back, and it does by naming the three possible statuses plus the guarantee of no secret values. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only failure semantics for a bad entry id are unaddressed.

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%; both secret_entry_id ('Opaque one-time secret entry id') and mcp_version are documented in the schema. The description only restates that secret_entry_id is the driving parameter and adds a version note, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema's own documentation.

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 ('check whether a secret has been submitted, consumed or expired') and enumerates the exact states returned. An agent can immediately distinguish this read-only status check from write-oriented siblings like create_secret_entry or set_app_secrets.

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 invocation context ('use with secret_entry_id to check status') and routes the agent to get_secret_entry_instructions for the surrounding workflow. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or name a status alternative, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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