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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing sort order ('newest first') and the presence of child agent_id links on claimed credentials, which are behavioral facts absent from annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence: identity of the resource and endpoint, ordering, notable return field, then the follow-up action. Nothing is padded and the key scoping comes first.

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 two-parameter, annotation-heavy read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how it's ordered, and how to revoke, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% with both limit (clamping) and cursor (invalid_cursor 400) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('delegated credentials you minted'), the underlying endpoint, the ordering ('newest first'), and the notable field returned ('child agent_id of each claimed one'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling list_* tools and from revoke_credential without inspecting schemas.

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?

Clear that this is the read path for your own minted credentials, and it explicitly routes the revoke action to 'revoke_credential'. It lacks an explicit when-not or a statement of prerequisites, but the context is unambiguous.

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