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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns only a URL, opening it requires the user to be signed in and confirm identity, and only the user's own browser can read the resolved value. This is security-relevant context beyond what readOnlyHint provides.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the function and a concrete use case; the second adds the critical return-type and security behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns, the authentication requirement, and the user-specific access model. Since there is no output schema, the explicit statement that it returns a URL is valuable and sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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%, so the single `name` parameter is already documented as the secret's name as shown by list_secrets. The description adds only a mild constraint ('one stored secret this account holds') but no new format or validation detail, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: return the dashboard link for one stored secret. It also distinguishes itself from value-returning siblings by explicitly promising 'a URL, never a value,' so an agent can tell it apart from tools like request_secret or list_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?

The description gives clear context: use this when the user wants a navigable link to one of their stored secrets, such as answering 'where is my Acme password?' with somewhere to go. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'not when the secret value itself is needed,' so it stops short of a 5, but the URL-versus-value contrast provides strong guidance.

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