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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it returns METADATA ONLY, explicitly does NOT return secret values, and names the underlying endpoint. The 'does not return secret values' disclosure is the kind of expectation-management that matters here and is not in the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the critical constraint (metadata only, no secret values) emphasized in caps, plus the endpoint. Every clause earns its place; nothing redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, enumerating the metadata fields (id, name, type, priority, restrictions). Pagination is fully covered by the schema. Nearly complete; it could note ordering but that is minor.

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, cursor, per_page, and projectId are all documented in the schema. The description adds no param syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('List') and resource ('a project's secret groups'), scoped to a project, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling list/get tools for addons, jobs, projects, and services. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 implied — you call it to enumerate a project's secret groups — but the description names no alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not condition (e.g., to read actual secret values the agent must look elsewhere). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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