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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses the behavior: the secret is returned once, never shown again, never appears in host.secret_list, and old secrets stop verifying with no overlap window. It also specifies the signing algorithm and claim constraints. The agent knows exactly what happens.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the critical behavioral caveats. Every clause adds value and no unnecessary words are present.

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?

The description covers the operation's purpose, the cryptographic details, the return behavior, the persistence (or lack thereof) of the secret, and the security implications (no overlap). Combined with the schema's parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter tenant_key is already well-documented in the schema, including the condition for when it's needed. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Generate and store'), a specific resource ('per-tenant secret for signing end_user_assertion'), and details the token format (HS256 compact JWS) and claims (sub/iat/exp). This clearly distinguishes it from generic secret tools like host.secret_set or host.key_rotate.

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 implies usage context by explaining the secret's uniqueness and the immediate invalidation of prior secrets, which suggests this is the tool to rotate the assertion secret. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'when not to use', but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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