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

The annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that the tool returns matching credentials with id, name, type, and metadata. It does not contradict the annotations and gives a reasonable picture of expected output. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or exact-match semantics, but that is not required for a search operation.

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 sentences, front-loads the core action and return fields, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes useful context 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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic return shape. It does not mention output schema details or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the annotations and the simple search semantics. The sibling tools provide surrounding context, though the description does not reference them.

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 schema has three parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them individually. The parameter names (limit, query, credential_type) are somewhat self-explanatory, but with zero schema-level description coverage the description should compensate more explicitly. Default values and filtering behavior are left entirely to inference.

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 tool searches the user's credentials and returns specific fields (id, name, type, metadata). It also identifies the primary use case: finding credentials when configuring nodes that require authentication. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'connect_credential' or 'list_credential_requests' tools.

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 gives a practical use case ('Use to find credentials when configuring nodes that require authentication') but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like connect_credential or list_credential_requests. The guidance is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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