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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: values are never returned, the briq receives a placeholder, and the credential gateway substitutes the real value in transit to the listed hosts. These are non-obvious security mechanics an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load what is returned, then the usage rule. Every clause earns its place, though the embedded JSON-ish snippet and parenthetical host/placement detail make the second sentence slightly run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return payload — it does so precisely (names, allowed hosts, where the value goes, never a value) — and it also closes the loop on how the returned names are consumed and how secrets get created. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to explain; baseline applies. The description correctly describes the response shape (name, hosts, header/body placement, never the value) rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 resource and verb: returns the team's secrets by name with allowed hosts and placement (header/body), explicitly excluding values. It doesn't name a sibling it is distinct from (e.g., briq_catalog), so an agent must infer differentiation, but the scope is unmistakable.

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 concrete downstream usage — reference a listed name in briq_run's env as { secret: "NAME", scope: "team" } — and routes creation to the dashboard's Secrets page or POST /v1/secrets with the explicit rule 'ask them, never ask for the value.' Clear context and a prohibition, though it never states when not to call this tool.

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