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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: secret values are never returned, listing is limited to aliases and purposes, and account scoping applies. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's safety and output boundaries.

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 concise and well-structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key value-scoping caveat, then a concrete usage example. Each sentence contributes distinct, necessary information without redundancy.

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 list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It covers what is returned, what is explicitly not returned, the intended use case, and the account scope, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to add, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

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 verb and resource: listing secrets stored in the Mnemoverse Vault. It further specifies that results are by ALIAS and purpose only and explicitly notes that the secret VALUE is never returned, which distinguishes it from any value-returning counterpart.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: to check which secrets the user has stored and under what alias, with a concrete example. It also sets expectations by stating only the user's account secrets are listed and that no tool on the connector returns the secret value.

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