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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the authorization gate (resources:write), the human-approval flow, the ~25 second default wait, the one-reveal-per-entry-version-per-caller limit, who can approve, and the handling rule about passwords in logs. This is the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Short, front-loaded declarative sentences with no filler. The permission requirement, default behavior, and the safety instruction each get one sentence and every sentence carries an actionable fact.

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 non-idempotent approval-gated tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow well enough to call it and resume it. It only partially sketches the return payload beyond answerUrl and a pending state, which an agent would need to branch on.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains approvalId's resume purpose and implies the target entry via 'this entry version', and hints at timeoutSeconds with 'waits up to 25 seconds' (though the schema allows up to 30). That partial coverage leaves one parameter only loosely tied to its name, so it does not fully compensate.

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: 'Request one password reveal for an account'. Scope is tied down further ('this entry version', 'this caller'), which separates it from sibling tools like save_credential or generate_password without needing their schemas.

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 usage context: only for an account the human asked the agent to operate, and the operator must show answerUrl to the human. It also explains the continuation path when the approval is still pending ('resume with approvalId'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-use case.

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