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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the response reports presence of keys and never the secrets, which matters for a BYOK audit call. Return shape details are left to the output schema, which exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the use case. No filler or 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?

With full annotations, an output schema and no parameters, the description is nearly complete. The one omission is explicit positioning relative to the key-management siblings (set_llm_key, remove_llm_key, list_llm_providers), which an agent must work out itself.

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 and the description correctly describes a parameterless call, so there is nothing to under-specify. Baseline 4 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 (List) and resource (LLM providers with stored keys), and adds the crucial detail that key material itself is never returned. It implies a distinction from list_llm_providers but never names that sibling, so the agent must infer the difference between listing providers and listing stored-key status.

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?

'Use to check BYOK configuration status' gives a clear triggering scenario for the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (list_llm_providers, test_llm_key) or when-not-to-use conditions.

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