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

Although the read-only hint is already in annotations, the description adds that includeUsageCounts affects the output (how often each is referenced) and that project context is required. This provides behavioral insight beyond the annotation, though it doesn't detail error handling or side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation.

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 concise, two sentences, with clear structure: what it does, then a note about the parameter, then usage guidance. No fluff.

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 is complete enough for a list operation given the schema. It mentions project context and the optional parameter. It lacks details on response format or pagination, but since there's no output schema, it's acceptable. However, it doesn't mention sorting or filtering beyond versionId, which is a minor omission.

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 describes each parameter fully. The description adds specific behavior for includeUsageCounts, clarifying its effect. It doesn't add much for specId/versionId, but it reinforces the purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and this addition brings it to 4.

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 action (list) and the resource (security schemes of a spec version), and distinguishes from the create/update/delete sibling by referencing manage_security_scheme_component. It is specific and 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (to browse or find an id) and when to use the alternative (manage_security_scheme_component for create/change/delete). It also notes the requirement of project context, providing clear usage guidance.

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