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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result is 'metadata only, never the token', which tells the agent no secret material is exposed — a security-relevant disclosure not present in the structured fields.

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 compact clause with no filler, and the most important constraint (stage-only, metadata only) is front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of being a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description adds the one thing an agent most needs to know about the payload (no token values). It omits any mention of auth or pagination, but for a parameterless read-only list tool the definition is adequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 identifies the resource ('sync tokens') and narrows its scope ('stage-only ... for CI/servers'), which distinguishes it from fillo_create_sync_token and fillo_revoke_sync_token by implication. However, it never states the verb 'list' and reads as a descriptive fragment, so the agent must lean on the tool name to confirm the action.

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?

'Stage-only sync tokens for CI/servers' implies the context in which this tool applies and implicitly scopes out non-stage tokens. It stops short of naming the alternatives (create/revoke sync token) or stating when to call this versus fillo_list_tokens or fillo_list_api_keys, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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