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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: the previous token dies immediately when overlap is 0, both work during a non-zero window, the old token then returns 401 token_revoked, and the new secret is shown only once. That is exactly the destruction/one-time-secret context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the parameters, then the failure semantics in four short declarative sentences. The only mildly redundant clause is the restated 0-300 range, which does not meaningfully dilute the entry.

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, and the description compensates by stating the return value ('the new token is returned once'). Combined with the annotations, parameter docs, and error semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this destructive, non-idempotent operation 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 0-300 range and the Authorization-header alternative. The description restates the range and optionality without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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+resource: issues a new token for the same principal, with the scope qualifier that every site carries over. An agent can distinguish it from revoke_token (which invalidates) and from publish_site without another lookup.

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 overlap_seconds rationale ('so an in-flight deploy can finish') tells the agent when a non-zero window matters, but nothing says when to rotate versus revoke, or whether rotation is safe to call repeatedly. No alternative is named.

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