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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating that secret values cannot be read back through this connection at all, which is a critical behavioral constraint beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the usage guidance and the critical limitation about values not being readable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, the description is complete. It states what is returned, what is not returned, and how to use the result. The annotations cover safety, and the sibling list provides context for alternatives.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns (names and counts) rather than parameters, which is the relevant semantic information for a parameterless tool.

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 lists secret names and usage counts from the account vault, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like bind_app_secret and set_app_secret by clarifying it only returns names and counts, not values.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to attach an existing secret with bind_app_secret instead of asking the user for the value again. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly distinguishes it from tools that set or modify secrets.

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