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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond that: it is "Free" (cost/pricing context the annotations do not carry) and the window defaults to the last 30 days when no "since" is supplied.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant token ("Free") and then the resource and default. No filler, though the fragment style leaves the intended action slightly implicit.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, default behavior, cost, and target audience. Only the return shape (a revocation list) and any pagination/limit behavior are left unstated.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain the sole parameter's meaning ("since a date") plus its default of 30 days, which the schema does not state. It leaves the exact date-time format to the schema, which already enforces it.

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 states a specific resource and scope: credentials revoked since a date, with a default window. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling kya_revoke (which performs a revocation) by describing a listing/query of revocations, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"for verifiers that cache credentials" gives a clear audience/context, implying this is a cache-invalidation feed rather than a bulk revocation action. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like kya_revoke or kya_check_action, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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