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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by promising the audit trail with before/after diffs and by stating 'Never the secret', which is a key expectation about sensitive output. It stops short of describing audit-trail size, ordering, or behavior for unknown ids.

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?

Everything the agent needs is in three short clauses, with scope and return contents front-loaded and the type enumeration kept to a trailing sentence. No filler or restatement of the tool name beyond what carries information.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what is deliberately withheld (the secret), and the authorization profile. Missing only edge behavior such as not-found handling and audit-trail pagination/size.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description's type enumeration (pat/glc_, repo/gcft_, deploy/gcdt_) is essentially a verbatim repeat of the `type` property description, so it adds little beyond the schema. The only genuine addition is the note that ids come from merjax_list_tokens, which justifies the baseline 3 rather than lower.

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?

It identifies a single token resource retrieved by type and id, and specifies the payload as 'everything list shows plus the audit trail (create, edits with a before/after diff, rotations, revocation)'. The retrieval verb is only implied by the phrasing rather than stated, and the sentence opens with a fragment, but the resource and return contents are unambiguous against siblings like merjax_list_tokens or merjax_rotate_token.

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 parenthetical '(from merjax_list_tokens)' explicitly routes the agent to enumerate ids via the sibling tool first, and 'Same scopes as merjax_list_tokens' tells the agent the permission profile matches that sibling. It does not state exclusions, e.g. that mutation operations (rotate/revoke) belong to other tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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