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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it enumerates the possible statuses (ok, revoked, expired, needs_rekeying, unconfigured) and discloses that it never returns a value. It omits permission/auth requirements for the owner_id scoping, but the behavioral core is well disclosed.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the status enumeration and the value-exclusion guard each earning their place. 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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully names the status set. It is largely complete for a read-only describe tool, with only minor gaps around vault permission nuances for owner_id.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Describe one vault entry as metadata', and scopes it precisely with the status field. It also distinguishes itself from the nonexistent secret_get, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is and is not.

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?

Provides a clear exclusion: 'Never a value: spend a secret through a brokered tool', which routes the agent away from misuse and to the correct mechanism. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling secret_list, but the when/when-not guidance is present and actionable.

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