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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds important behavioral details: it resolves inherited auth, shows where the auth comes from, and does not return secret values. No contradictions with the annotation are present.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant or vague wording. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with important caveats, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 provides the tool's purpose, usage trigger, behavioral details, and a prerequisite (project context). Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the caller needs to know to invoke the tool correctly. No critical information appears to be missing.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, including entityId as a Guid, entityType values, and environmentId default behavior. The tool description adds meaningful context about inheritance and the possible sources (case, suite, environment, project), which enriches understanding of how the parameters affect the result.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing the resolved auth for a test suite or test case after inheritance, including its source (case, suite, environment, or project). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_environment_auth by focusing on the resolved, inherited result. The verb 'Show' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this before debugging a 401 by hand.' It also notes that project context is required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the provided guidance is clear enough for most scenarios.

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