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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the response shape uses header_keys and header VALUES are never returned by any read, which prevents an agent from trying to recover secrets through a different read path. It does not mention pagination or ordering, keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the security caveat follows immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the action, the key return-field name, and the critical redaction guarantee. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are paginated or ordered, which are low-stakes here.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents agent_id (agent UUID) and purpose, including a lengthy purpose contract. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an agent's HTTP tools"), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from write-side siblings like upsert_agent_tool or delete_agent_tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, so it stops 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the read path for inspecting an existing agent's configured tools rather than fetching the agent itself (get_agent) or modifying tools (upsert_agent_tool).

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