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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the metadata-only contract ('Never a value'), the scope prerequisites for each vault kind, and the hard refusal for agent seats on foreign/org vaults. It omits pagination, result limits, and ordering behavior for large vaults, 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what it lists and what it returns, followed by access rules and the clarifying absence of a get tool. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 values need not be re-explained, and the description covers scope, metadata-only behavior, and permission/refusal semantics. It leaves out operational details like pagination or ordering, a minor gap for a list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by correlating parameter choice (own vs another's vs org vault) with the differing permission requirements and the agent-seat refusal. That meaning goes beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 resource (one vault's entries) and enumerates the exact metadata returned (name, keyed fingerprint, key id, version, status, timestamps). The scope is unambiguous, and 'Never a value' plus 'There is no secret_get' cleanly delimits it from a value-fetch operation.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance tied to the owning relationship and required scopes: your own vault needs ``secret:use``, whereas another's or the org vault needs ``secret:manage`` and refuses agent seats. It stops short of naming the sibling ``secret_describe`` or stating when to prefer each, so the alternative selection is left implicit.

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