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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that secret values are never returned by design, that they live encrypted in the panel, and that only an admin there can reveal them. That is exactly the behavioral fact an agent would otherwise discover only after a failed call. It omits return ordering/shape details and any auth or rate-limit notes, keeping it shy of a 5.

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 verb+resource and the labels-only constraint, then the security rationale, then the escape hatch — a sensible order. Slightly padded with 'by design' and the restated purpose clause, but no sentence is discardable.

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 characterize the return value, and it does: a label-only list with representative examples. Combined with the explicit statement that values are excluded, an agent knows what it will and will not receive. Pagination, ordering, and empty-list behavior are unstated but minor for a short per-site list.

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% and the single parameter already carries 'Site id from list_sites', so the schema fully specifies the input. The description adds only the scoping phrase 'for a site', which restates rather than enriches the parameter. Baseline 3 is the correct score here.

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 WHAT accesses/credentials are on file for a site') and immediately constrains the payload to labels with concrete examples (wp-admin, WPE SFTP, Cloudflare). No sibling tool in the list deals with credentials, so an agent can identify this as the only enumeration path for on-file accesses 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?

Explains the purpose of calling it ('so you know what exists and can tell the user which to use') and explicitly routes the value-retrieval case elsewhere ('To see or use a value, direct the user to the site's vault in the Site Doctor panel'). It stops short of naming when this should not be called at all, but the alternative path is unambiguous, which is what an agent needs to avoid a dead-end call.

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