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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the secret is returned exactly once and can never be retrieved again, instructing the agent to capture it immediately, and listing auth and error behavior. Annotations only signal readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds critical operational context.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose, one-time-secret warning, return fields, auth, errors, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical warning is front-loaded.

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?

With only 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers what the agent needs: return shape, irrecoverable secret, auth prerequisites, error codes, and related tools. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents appId's default behavior, label's purpose, and timeoutMs default. The description does not materially add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Mint a new app token for an app,' a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it returns the token plus tokenId. It also names related management tools, making the create-vs-manage distinction explicit and separating it from list/rotate/revoke siblings.

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?

Auth prerequisites (B2B mode + b2bToken) and common error cases are stated directly. Related tools are named, though it does not explicitly phrase 'use this when you need a new token' as an exclusionary guideline; still, the intended context is clear.

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