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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: responses contain decrypted client secrets that must never be shown to the user. That is real value beyond structured fields, though pagination/response-shape behavior is unaddressed.

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?

One dense sentence with the operation, the invocation parameters, the goal, and the security warning, all front-loaded with zero filler.

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 4-param, no-output-schema read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, invocation mode and the critical secret-handling caveat. It leaves the 'fields' parameter and result shape unexplained, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 both filter and identifier are fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description only restates one filter value and the pluginId binding, adding no syntax or usage nuance beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('List a plugin's authentication versions') and pairs the concrete filter/identifier values, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It implicitly differentiates from list_action_versions by naming auth versions, but never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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?

'to find an authid' gives an implied use case, and the filter hint narrows the mode of invocation. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer this over siblings like list_plugins or call_any_read_api_of_viasocket.

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