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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a real behavioral constraint: the password is returned in full and therefore requires both deployments:read and deployments:write, with read-only credentials unable to reveal it. It also documents the password: null case and who generates the password. The readOnlyHint=true annotation is about side effects, not auth level, so there is no contradiction.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the auth constraint, then the null-setup edge case. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and mostly does so: field list, null password case, and auth requirements. It leaves minor gaps such as error behavior for missing deployments or whether SFTP must be enabled first, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required id parameter. The description only indirectly implies id identifies the deployment to fetch, without saying its format, source, or whether a non-existent/unknown id errors. One implication is better than nothing but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (SFTP connection details for a deployment) and enumerates exactly the four fields returned: host, port, username, password. An agent can immediately tell this is the credential-retrieval tool, not a general deployment reader like deployments_get, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 context is implied rather than stated: the auth note tells the agent a write-scoped credential is required, and it hints the owner generates passwords in the dashboard SFTP tab. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for agents that only hold deployments:read and need a different route.

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