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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful transparency by noting that maskedPreview is redacted and plaintext is never returned, which sets accurate expectations about response content.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful guidance. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 includes key workflow context, result handling instructions, and security behavior. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and expected output without needing additional context.

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?

The only parameter, requestId, is described as 'Credential-request ID.' The description contextually links it to the create operation, making its origin clear. Schema coverage is complete, and no additional explanation is required.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: get the status of a pending credential request by ID. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explaining its role in the polling workflow after creation and before using the credential.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: poll this tool after vault_credential_request_create until status is FULFILLED, then use the returned credentialId as a normal vault credential. This removes ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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