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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is freed to add value, and it does: it discloses the visibility model and the important security behavior that only metadata and env-var keys are returned, never secret values. That is meaningful context 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the security caveat placed last. The parenthetical '(user_id IS NULL)' is slightly jargon-heavy but earns its place by defining what 'team-shared' means.

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 exists, but the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (metadata and env-var keys, not values). For a simple one-param read tool this is nearly complete, with only the alternative-routing guidance missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single team_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the team-scoping but adds no format or fallback detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list secrets) plus the exact scope: team-shared entries, the caller's personal entries, and org-granted secrets. This clearly separates it from getSecret (single) and listRevisionSecrets (a different namespace).

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 described result scope implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit routing to alternatives like getSecret or listRevisionSecrets, and no stated preconditions. Usage must be inferred from the visibility description rather than being spelled out.

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