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

With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee that secret values are never returned and only metadata fields appear, which is important context beyond the structured annotations. Pagination and ordering are not disclosed, but the core behavioral trait is well covered.

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 compact and the core scope is front-loaded. The parenthetical metaphor adds rationale but is slightly decorative; overall, the text is still efficient and well structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, output scope, and a use case, and the annotation covers read-only safety. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it omits parameter semantics, ordering/pagination behavior, and a clear definition of what makes an app 'graduated.'

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%, and the description does not explain dropId or managementToken at all. It only implies a 'graduated app' context, leaving both parameter meanings to be inferred from the schema's names and patterns.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List a graduated app's secrets') and clearly bounds the output to names, host bindings, and dates only. This distinguishes it from secret mutation tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling list tools.

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 intended use: 'Use it to know what to rotate or delete.' It provides clear context for when the tool is helpful, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer when not to use it.

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