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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral context: the returned fields, the explicit 'never secrets' guarantee, and the owner-key vs bot-key visibility model. It omits pagination, ordering, and result-size limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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 tight sentences, with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded ahead of the secondary authorization detail. No 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of naming return fields, the secrets exclusion, and the permission model. Missing pagination/ordering behavior is a minor gap for a simple zero-parameter list 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantics to explain and there is nothing for the description 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 ('List') plus resource ('saved logins') and enumerates what is returned, cleanly distinguishing it from siblings like save_login and delete_login. An agent can identify it without opening a schema.

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?

The description explains the authorization context (owner key expands results, bot key is scoped down), which implies usage conditions, but it never explicitly states when to pick this over alternatives such as audit_log or session_fetch, and gives no when-not guidance.

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