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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the output is metadata only and excludes secret values, which matters for a credentials-related resource, plus the REST endpoint mapping for traceability.

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 with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (metadata only, not secrets) is placed immediately after the purpose rather than buried.

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 trivial read-only list with no parameters and no annotations requiring elaboration, the description covers purpose, returned content, and endpoint mapping. A brief note on ordering or whether all tokens are returned in one call would close the remaining gap.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 account's API tokens') with a precise qualifier that resolves the main ambiguity about what is returned. No sibling in the list covers token management, so there is no overlap risk; an agent knows exactly what this does.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name – an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to enumerate tokens. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative stated, but with no sibling covering tokens there is little routing ambiguity to resolve.

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