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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the visibility rule tied to ownership ('someone has to be able to clean up after a member leaves'), the hard guarantee that the secret and its hash are never returned, that the plaintext appears only once at creation, and that the prefix is safe to read out. This is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Well front-loaded: scope first, then returned fields, then the security caveat, then routing. Every sentence carries unique information, though the parenthetical justification and the retrieval warning are slightly long for a read-only list tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating the fields each entry provides. Combined with the scoping rules and cross-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so include_revoked is already documented in the schema (in Chinese). The description mentions that entries report revocation status but does not add syntax or semantics for the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (credentials/api tokens), then immediately scopes it: own credentials plus everything in the workspace if owner. The enumerated entry fields and the explicit routing to revoke_api_token and create_cli_token clearly distinguish it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly names the follow-up action ('Stop one with revoke_api_token; token_id comes from here and nowhere else'), states a deliberate boundary ('Creating a new long-lived token is only possible on the web console'), and points to create_cli_token for one-off SPACE CLI credentials. When-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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