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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the value is stored encrypted in a Vault and is never returned by tools, which sets correct expectations about read-back. It stops short of covering permissions, duplicate-alias behavior, or idempotency.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the non-return behavior follows as the key caveat.

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?

With a full schema and an output schema present, the description needn't document parameters or return values, and it correctly adds the write-only caveat. It is nearly complete, missing only operational context such as auth requirements or what happens on alias collision.

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 description coverage is 100%, so alias, content, secretType, tags, and walletAddress are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., the single/bundle/json distinction or alias rules), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Store a secret ... as an encrypted Vault record') with a concrete example of what a secret is. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools proofable_secret_list and proofable_secret_revoke.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Store', and an agent can infer this is the tool for persisting new secrets rather than listing or revoking them. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a wallet/session), and no statement of when not to use it.

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