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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: values are never returned (only names plus timestamps), and server functions consume secrets from `env` by name. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or permission requirements, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (values are write-only) is front-loaded alongside the return shape. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially sufficient — it even documents the returned fields that an output schema would otherwise carry. The only gap is that the required `websiteId` is never mentioned, and pagination/ordering is unstated.

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 0% for the single required parameter `websiteId`, so the description must compensate. The phrase "a website's secrets" implies the parameter selects the target site, which partially does the job, but it never names the parameter, states its format, or clarifies whether it accepts a site ID versus a domain.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns the names of a website's secrets") and specifies the exact return fields (created and last-changed timestamps). It also draws a hard boundary against any expectation of secret values: "Values are write-only and never returned."

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery call for enumerating which secrets exist, and the write-only sentence implicitly explains why you cannot use it to read a value. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of a sibling such as websiteFunctions or source-code tools that might hold a related secret, and no exclusions.

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