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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing what the listing reports: enabled state, stored value/timestamp, 'missing' names read via Secret.Read, and 'optional' names checked via Secret.Exists. That category breakdown is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the heavy dash-and-parenthetical construction makes it dense and hard to parse on a first read, and the nesting of two categories (missing/optional) inside the run-on sentence costs clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the status categories returned. Combined with complete annotation coverage and fully described parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of any write-scenario routing keeps it short of 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 the baseline is 3. The description's 'With feature, that feature's copy' loosely reinforces the schema's own 'List this feature's copy instead,' but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond it, and says nothing about the required privateKey.

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+resource ('list the lambda's secrets') and immediately scopes the output ('by name - never their values'), which cleanly separates it from value-returning or mutating siblings. However, it never names the relevant siblings (set_secret, delete_secret), so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you'd call this to inspect secret state, and 'With feature, that feature's copy' hints at the feature-scoping use case. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to set_secret or delete_secret for write operations.

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