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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already declares that this destroys data, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the precondition that the secret must be unread and a cost note ('Free'), but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or what is returned after the burn.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Free' is marketing-ish but does convey cost information an agent might otherwise lack.

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?

No output schema and only a single annotation, so the description carries most of the burden. It omits the receiptToken's origin, post-burn state, and error behavior for already-read secrets — significant gaps for a destructive one-time-secret operation.

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?

Both required parameters ('id' and 'receiptToken') have 0% schema description coverage and are never mentioned in the description. An agent gets no hint about what a receiptToken is or where to obtain it, so the description fails to 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?

Specific verb ('Destroy') plus resource ('a secret you created') and a timing qualifier ('before anyone reads it'), which cleanly separates it from the create/read/status siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Before anyone reads it' implies the condition under which burning is appropriate (revoking an as-yet-unread secret), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of what happens if the secret has already been read.

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