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 and the description clears a lower bar. It adds real value beyond that: it discloses that secrets are never returned (only the last 4 characters), that unreadable token types appear under `omitted`, and that reading requires 'user' or 'repo' scope. The enumeration of status values (active / expiring / expired / revoked / never_used / stale) also signals the range of outcomes an agent can expect.

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 returned-field inventory is front-loaded in the first sentence and the filter/permission details follow, so the agent reads the most important information first. The single dense sentence enumerating fields is long but every item listed is a genuine output field the caller would want to know about. Slightly over-packed, but 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so thoroughly by naming type, name, status, last 4 characters, scopes, repository, expiry, last use, use count and rotation state. With one optional parameter and full schema coverage, that leaves little unexplained. The only gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing for token-listing variants.

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% and the single `type` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the same pat/repo/deploy mapping with prefixes (glc_, gcft_, gcdt_) and adds the useful 'omit for all three' behavior, but that is largely mirrored in the schema's own description. Marginal added meaning over structured data.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List your own tokens', and constrains the scope with 'your own' and '(never a secret)', which distinguishes it from listing repository-owned tokens. It never names a sibling such as merjax_list_repo_tokens or merjax_get_token explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'List your own tokens' plus the note that omitting `type` returns all three categories, so the agent can infer when to pass the filter. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over merjax_list_repo_tokens or merjax_get_token, and no exclusions are given. The permission notes ('PATs need user scope') hint at failure conditions but are not framed as guidance.

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