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 adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it names the fields returned, states that the secret is never exposed, and notes the required 'repo' scope. It does not describe pagination or result ordering, but the extra security and scope details are valuable.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists returned fields and the scope requirement. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description gives enough detail to call the tool correctly: it identifies the resource, returned fields, secret omission, and required scope. The only minor gap is that pagination or result limits are not mentioned.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics and instead notes a scope prerequisite, which is not a call parameter but is useful context.

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 and resource: list fine-grained repository tokens that the caller has minted. It distinguishes the scope as repository tokens rather than all tokens, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as merjax_list_tokens or merjax_get_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?

Usage is implied by the resource being listed, and the description adds a prerequisite that 'repo' scope is required. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like merjax_list_tokens, nor does it state any exclusions.

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