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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely new context: values are never returned, only a masked preview and fingerprint. That disclosure is exactly the behavioral trait an agent needs and is not covered by 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the critical 'VALUES ARE NEVER RETURNED' constraint. Every clause earns its place by describing the returned data.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well via the masked-preview/fingerprint explanation, while annotations cover safety. The main gap is that pagination (limit) and required-parameter behavior remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters (limit, project_id) is documented in the schema. The description only weakly implies 'a project's' scoping for project_id and says nothing about limit or pagination semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('List a project's secrets') and immediately qualifies the return content, so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. list_variables) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and the note about confirming a secret still matches what was set, which hints at a verification use case. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or any reference to an alternative tool.

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