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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral detail that secret token values are never returned (only shown once at create/rotate time), which is crucial for agents to avoid expecting secrets in responses. It also discloses auth requirements and error codes, adding value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and return details, the second covers auth and error codes. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list operation with 2 optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the auth prerequisite, and error conditions. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description listing the returned metadata fields. It could mention pagination or result limits, but these are not critical for this tool given its simplicity.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for both appId and timeoutMs. The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional information is needed from the description.

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 lists app tokens and specifies the metadata fields returned (tokenId, label, timestamps, status), explicitly distinguishing it from token creation, rotation, and revocation siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable for an agent.

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?

The description includes an explicit auth requirement (B2B mode with ethora-auth-use-b2b and a configured b2bToken), which tells an agent when the tool is usable. It also lists error conditions (401/403, 400, 404) that clarify failure scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with create/rotate/revoke alternatives, though the operation name and description make that obvious.

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