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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds a critical behavioral fact: the server cannot decrypt and therefore no tool here will ever return a secret value. It also discloses the exact return shape. This is valuable context an agent needs before selecting the tool.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: scope, critical caveat, usage guidance, and return shape. The most important limitation is front-loaded immediately after the main action.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, what is never returned, when to use it, and the alternative for reading values. The input schema fully documents parameters, and the output shape is explicitly stated despite the absence of an output schema.

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%, with app, env, and org all explained in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the secret NAMES and versions in an environment.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('NEVER returns values'), which distinguishes it from value-reading operations like setup_local_crypto. The return shape further removes ambiguity.

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 it to discover which names exist before referencing them.' It also names an alternative for reading values: 'run the local crypto plane (see setup_local_crypto)' and states a broad exclusion ('no tool here will ever return one'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_secret_versions, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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