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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful disclosure that only names and permitted hosts are exposed (not secret values), which is a security-relevant trait the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The return shape is front-loaded and the templating syntax follows as actionable follow-up.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, what fields come back, and how to consume the result. Nothing material is 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or scoping inputs are needed, consistent with the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (workspace's stored secrets) and an explicit statement of what is returned: names and the host each may be sent to. This distinguishes it cleanly from list_jobs / list_series / list_annotations, none of which touch credentials.

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?

Provides clear downstream guidance ('Use one in a job's url, headers or body as {{secret:NAME}}'), which tells the agent why it would call this tool. It stops short of explicit when/when-not framing or naming an alternative, but no sibling tool in the list overlaps with secret retrieval.

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