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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Secret values are never returned — only IDs and metadata (type, key name, verified, title).' It also explains that credentials are referenced by ID when creating projects, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise but information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds usage guidance and behavioral caveats in a well-structured format. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool returns, how to use the results (IDs for project creation), and what to do when no credentials are available. It is complete for the tool's scope.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics (none exist), but it does explain how the result should be used (referencing IDs for project creation). Since there are no params to document, the description adequately compensates by clarifying the output's role.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's saved credentials (Global Integrations).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools (list_projects, list_sessions) by specifying the resource as credentials and tying it to the project creation workflow.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'ALWAYS call this before creating any bot project or asking the user for a token/API key.' It also gives fallback instructions if nothing suitable is saved, directing the user to add credentials via settings. This provides clear context and excludes alternative approaches like asking for tokens in chat.

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