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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: values are masked and secrets are never returned, plus enumerates returned fields (name, title, description, docs URL, category). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe any edge cases like empty projects or error behavior.

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?

Description is compact and well-structured: opens with the primary action, then lists output fields and the masking caveat, then provides usage guidance and sibling distinction. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 (1 param, output schema present), the description is fully self-contained. It explains what the tool returns (fields, masked values), when to use it, and how it differs from the related global integrations tool. No important context 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?

Schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter project_id with description 'the project to inspect.' The description does not add any substantive new meaning to the parameter beyond what's in the schema; it merely ties the parameter to the project. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents the param.

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?

Description clearly states it lists a project's environment variables with details, naming the specific resource (project env vars). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool dreamagent_list_global_integrations by noting project-specific vs global integrations.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'to see which integrations a project already has before adding more' and answering 'what keys does my project have?'. Also explicitly contrasts with the global integrations alternative, telling the agent when not to use this tool.

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