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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: only metadata is returned and secret values are never exposed, and creation of secrets is out of scope entirely. It stops short of stating pagination or result-shape behavior, but the output schema carries that.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose and scope first, then the use case, then the exclusion and off-ramp. No repetition of the name or annotations, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and complete annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, what is deliberately withheld, and where to go when the needed resource is absent. No material gap remains.

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 page_size, page_token and slug_prefix are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail for them (e.g. how slug_prefix matching works, sensible page sizes), 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 secrets belonging to the authenticated tenant') plus an explicit scope constraint ('metadata only — never the secret value') that separates it from get_secret. It also defines what a secret is, so an agent new to the domain understands the resource immediately.

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 a concrete when-to-use ('discover which secrets exist so you can wire an api template's auth.secret to the right slug') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('send the user to https://tessryx.io/dashboard/secrets — secrets cannot be created or set through this assistant'). This removes the most likely misfire, an attempt to create a missing secret via this toolset.

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