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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds meaningful context by explicitly stating it does not reveal the key. This is a valuable non-obvious behavioral guarantee that complements the annotations and reassures agents handling sensitive configuration.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is delivered in the first sentence, and the critical safety caveat about not revealing the key follows immediately. Every word 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it checks, that it is safe, and the key privacy guarantee. No return-value explanation is required given the output schema presence.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. The description correctly focuses on the behavior rather than inputs, and the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource ('AgentPub bridge secret') and the condition being tested (whether it is configured). It clearly distinguishes itself from other status tools in the sibling list by focusing on the AgentPub bridge secret specifically.

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 implies its use case: checking the AgentPub bridge secret configuration before relying on AgentPub functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative status checks like check_sales_mission_status or get_hubspot_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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