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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main contribution is the auth requirement (admin only), which annotations do not cover. It says nothing about how the returned secret should be handled, whether retrieval is audited or rate-limited, or whether the plaintext value is always returned.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the access restriction is front-loaded right after the core action. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and the key permission gate. The only real gap is the shape of the response, since a secret-returning tool would benefit from noting that the value is returned in plaintext.

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 parameters are documented in the schema itself, including that name comes from list_secrets and that token is an alternative to a bearer header. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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?

"Fetch a secret value from the ops vault" gives a specific verb and resource, and the mention of "secret value" implicitly separates it from the sibling list_secrets, which enumerates names rather than retrieving values. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

"Admin only" communicates a prerequisite for use, and the schema ties the name parameter back to list_secrets, implying the discover-then-fetch workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_secrets or other siblings, and no note on what to do when access is denied.

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