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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses project scoping and, critically, that secret values are never returned ('Never values'), which sets a hard expectation about the payload. It does not state required permissions or whether ordering/pagination applies, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste; the resource scope comes first and the security-critical 'Never values' caveat lands at the end where it is most visible.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the effective return shape (names, allowed hosts, set timestamps). Only minor gaps remain - permissions needed and any ordering or pagination behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated return fields partially compensate for the absent output schema.

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 ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('this project's secrets'), and enumerates the returned fields (names, allowed hosts, set time). The read-only listing nature inherently separates it from set_secret and delete_secret, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 - an agent would call this to inventory existing secrets before setting or deleting one - but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling like get_project that may also surface secret metadata.

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