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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations: the return cardinality (one grant per project) and the default ordering (most recently shared first), which the schema's sort enum does not state as a default.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the key facts front-loaded (what it lists, granularity, default ordering) and no filler. It is efficient, though for a six-parameter paginated list it is arguably too sparse to fully carry its load.

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 output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (one grant per project) and the default ordering, which an agent needs to interpret results correctly. Pagination behavior is left to the schema's cursor parameter, so nothing critical is missing, but the description does not tie the pieces together.

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%, so every parameter (name glob, sort, limit, cursor, orgID, secretID) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Lists) and resource (the projects a secret is shared with), and clarifies the granularity ('one grant per project'), which distinguishes it from grant_secrets_add/delete. However, it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling grant lists (machines/models/pools/skills), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

The phrase 'most recently shared first by default' implies the sort parameter can override ordering, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over the other grant_*_list tools, and no note on pagination handling. Usage is only implied.

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