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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: only public NEXT_PUBLIC_ values are shown and secret values are never returned, which is critical for an agent deciding whether this tool can answer a question about secrets.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the return contract and the secret-handling caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is slightly conversational rather than maximally tight.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and a single required parameter, the description covers the trigger, the returned fields, and the security caveat. The only material omission is any guidance on the required site_id argument.

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?

There is one parameter, site_id, and schema description coverage is 0% — the schema documents nothing about it. The description never mentions site_id, its format, or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; the parameter's meaning is only inferable from the tool name and context.

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 (environment variables for a WebTwizz site), and enumerates exactly what is returned: each variable's name, whether it is set, and the managing connector. That detail distinguishes it from the write-side sibling set-env-variable without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 names the triggering user intent ("when the user asks which settings or keys their WebTwizz site has, like API keys and environment variables"), which gives clear context. It does not name the alternative tool (set-env-variable) or state any exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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