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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: secret values are never returned and only IDs/metadata (type, key name, verified, title) come back, plus the exact ID field names used downstream. That is information an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the imperative usage rule and organized into purpose, ID-reference semantics, and fallback guidance. It is longer than strictly minimal, but each block (secret handling, fallback instructions) carries actionable content for the next call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is not required, and the description still summarizes the useful returned fields. Combined with the when-to-use rule and the fallback path, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and act on 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the rules give a baseline of 4 — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty, so no coverage gap exists to compensate for.

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 — listing the user's saved credentials (Global Integrations) — and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like dreamagent_list_projects or dreamagent_list_files. The parenthetical alias also clarifies the domain terminology an agent will encounter elsewhere.

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 an explicit imperative trigger ('ALWAYS call this before creating any bot project or asking the user for a token/API key') and a fallback path when nothing suitable is saved. It also names the alternatives implicitly by steering the agent away from asking for pasted secrets.

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