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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds material behavior: values are never returned, live entries are ordered first, status codes are decoded ("zywy" live vs "martwy" dead: revoked or replaced), and expiry semantics via expires_at. It also discloses the access scope (tunnel's own plus account-wide, lease holder only).

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 what the tool returns and the critical caveat that values are excluded, followed by ordering, status decoding and selection advice. Dense and mostly non-redundant, though the ordering sentence and the status-decoding sentence overlap slightly in conveying liveness.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description fully covers what comes back (name, description, kind, service, status, expiry), the ordering, and how to interpret status/expiry — enough to use the result without a schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no argument surface to document; baseline for an empty schema is 4. The description instead spends its budget on the shape of the result set, which is the only semantic an agent needs here.

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 the resource (vault entries: passwords, API keys, tokens, notes) and the scope (own plus whole account's) alongside the returned fields. It explicitly contrasts with vault_get ("Never the values: read one with vault_get"), so an agent can distinguish it from the one sibling that overlaps.

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?

Explicitly routes value retrieval to vault_get, states the selection rule ("Pick an entry that is live and not expired") and the access condition ("Only the agent on duty in the tunnel ... reads the vault"). Conditions for use and the alternative are both named, not inferred.

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