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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations: it discloses the precedence rules for competing entries, the fields returned (status, expires_at, expired, service), that every read is written to an audited ledger with who/when/IP, and a data-handling prohibition against persisting the value. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and none are in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resolution rule, then the safety constraints; every sentence carries distinct information. The parenthetical precedence clause is dense enough to need a second read, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

Complete for a one-parameter read tool with no output schema: the description itself enumerates the returned fields, the validity rules for acting on them, and the access/audit constraints. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 single `name` parameter is already well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top by explaining how a name resolves when several entries match, which the schema does not cover.

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 and resource: read the value of one named vault entry, with an explicit resolution rule (live over dead, tunnel over account). It is clearly distinguished from vault_list, which is named as the alternative for dead/expired entries.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance (do not use a value whose status is "martwy" or expired=true; call vault_list and pick a live one instead) plus a hard precondition (only the agent on duty may read; a waiting agent is refused). Both the fallback path and the eligibility rule are spelled out.

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