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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: secret values are never returned, scope semantics (service vs inherited org), override precedence, and the account-connection prerequisite. These are the kinds of security- and auth-relevant facts an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 dense sentences, with the concrete capability and return shape front-loaded before the operational caveats. Every clause carries information (secret redaction, scope, override, out-of-band mutation, auth), though the second sentence chains several distinct facts and could be split.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields (name, secret, scope, override). Combined with the auth prerequisite and the redaction rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result correctly.

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% with only two parameters, including the org_name default behavior, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description's mention of 'org for one it inherits' is conceptual scope explanation rather than added parameter syntax, 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 ('List the environment variables an app or agent receives') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, secret flag, scope, override). It also separates itself from the mutation siblings by noting org variables are changed from the dashboard or CLI, not these tools, so an agent can distinguish it from set_env_vars/unset_env_vars.

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?

Explains the context in which the tool applies (variables an app or agent receives) and gives an explicit 'when not' for mutation of org variables. It stops short of naming set_env_vars/unset_env_vars as the alternative for writing, but the routing guidance is clear.

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