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

Annotations only give the generic non-read-only/non-idempotent profile; the description adds the critical behavioral fact that the secret is returned once and must never be logged, plus the API_GAP failure mode. Missing details on rate limits or what happens to existing tokens, but the one-time-secret disclosure is high-value behavior beyond structured fields.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action, the endpoint, the session caveat, and the secret-handling warning all appear in one compact sentence with zero filler. The telegraphic jargon ('API_GAP', 'wallet-session') costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description does cover the most consequential return behavior (one-time secret) and the auth-related failure mode. But the three input parameters remain entirely unexplained, which leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% across all three parameters (label, scopes, ttlDays) and the description adds nothing substantive: 'scoped' loosely hints at the scopes array, but label and ttlDays semantics, defaults, and constraints (max 12 scopes, max 365 days) are nowhere explained in prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create scoped user API token') and even cites the endpoint POST /api/v1.1/me/credentials. It implicitly separates itself from the credential siblings (list/revoke), but never names them, so differentiation requires the agent to infer from the verb alone.

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?

'Usually wallet-session only on portal; agents get API_GAP' is genuine usage guidance — it tells the agent this call may fail for agents and how to recognize it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to create a credential versus reusing one, nor any pointer to list_credentials/revoke_credential.

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