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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds the crucial non-obvious trait 'Value-blind: checks only whether env vars are set and never reads or returns values.' This is behavioral context the structured fields cannot convey, plus what output to expect (label, purpose, provider URL, method, command).

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the key non-obvious constraint (value-blind), then usage guidance. No filler.

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 read-only inspection tool with annotations, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: result contents, the safety-critical value-blind guarantee, and the workflow position (after plan_clone, alongside run_auth_flow).

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 coverage is 100% with rich nested descriptions (mode, host, port, user, identityFile, cwd), so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds only implicit context about 'the profile' and 'the target,' which is marginal but slightly helpful.

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 precise verb+resource: it lists required credentials plus their present/missing status and acquisition details. The parenthetical enumerates exactly what is returned, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like run_auth_flow (which acts on a credential) or plan_clone (which plans the clone).

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('after plan_clone to see what a clone would leave degraded') and names the pairing tool ('pair it with run_auth_flow to act on one credential'), giving both the trigger and the follow-up action.

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