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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral detail: secrets are encrypted and never returned—only names and last 4 characters—and variables are public config. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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, each providing necessary information: purpose, variable semantics, secret semantics, and naming convention. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the important domain distinction between variables and secrets and the naming convention. This is sufficient context for correct use.

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?

The single parameter bucket_id is fully documented in the schema with type and example (e.g., bkt_...). The description adds no parameter-specific details, and schema coverage is 100%, so 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?

The description opens with 'Read a bucket's integration variables and secrets', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes variables (public, returned in full) from secrets (server-only, masked), which differentiates it from sibling tools like bucket_env_set.

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 description makes clear this is a read-only accessor for integration variables and secrets, implying use when you need to inspect them. It does not explicitly name alternatives like bucket_env_set, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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