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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: results exclude secrets, and there is an explicit authorization scoping rule tied to human intent. It stops short of describing return fields or pagination, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded: what the tool returns first, the usage guardrail second. No hedging, no repetition, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, output-schema-less list tool, the description covers purpose, the key output caveat (no secrets), and the permitted scope. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are paginated or what identifying fields an authenticator record carries, which an agent might want before relying on the listing.

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 with a fully closed schema (additionalProperties=false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing arguments or filters that the schema does not support.

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?

"List workspace authenticators" gives a specific verb and resource, and "without secrets" adds an important scope qualifier that distinguishes the output from get_totp_code. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (add_authenticator, delete_authenticator), but the list-vs-mutate distinction is evident from the verb.

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?

"Use only for accounts your human asked you to create or operate" is a real access restriction that tells the agent when this tool is permitted, which is more than nothing. However, it gives no guidance on choosing between this and alternatives such as get_totp_code or add_authenticator, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives dimension is only implied.

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