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

With no annotations provided, description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. Explains idempotent-like creation behavior (creates only if none exists), distinguishes between return formats (setup commands vs username+note), and clarifies password handling. Could mention authentication requirements or error states, but covers main behavioral traits well.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, conditional creation branch, conditional existing branch, and sibling reference. Information is front-loaded and logically ordered by execution paths.

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?

Despite no output schema, description adequately explains return values for both code paths (setup commands vs username/note). Covers side effects (credential creation) and references related credential management workflow. Missing only edge case handling for a complex credential management operation.

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 has 100% coverage ('Firewall public ID'), establishing baseline of 3. Description references 'for a firewall' which implicitly maps to firewall_id parameter but adds no additional semantic detail about format, constraints, or lookup behavior beyond the schema definition.

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 specific action (get proxy credentials and package manager configuration) with target resource (firewall). Distinguishes from sibling roll_proxy_credential by specifying when to use that alternative ('if a new password is needed'), clarifying this tool retrieves existing credentials while the sibling rotates them.

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?

Provides explicit conditional logic: use this when you need current credentials (creates if absent, returns existing if present). Explicitly names alternative tool roll_proxy_credential for the specific case of needing a new password, creating clear decision boundaries.

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