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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds substantial behavioral context: no secret value is ever returned, a shown value implies set_env with secret=false, non-declared secrets are hand-added, and a required-but-unset name is what holds a project in awaiting_secrets. That is real value beyond 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?

The returned-fields list is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, though the em-dash clause about secret vs. declared variables is dense and takes a second pass to parse. No filler or redundancy.

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 fully enumerates what the call returns, including the secret-suppression rule and the awaiting_secrets semantics. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required project_id with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains its format or scope. The parameter is largely self-evident, but with the schema silent the description could have compensated and does not.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('environment variables BY NAME') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (set status, declared status, last-written time, value for non-secrets). It also contrasts itself with sibling tools set_env and get_secrets_link, so an agent can place it 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?

It routes the agent for the secret case ('see get_secrets_link') and explains the relationship to set_env, but it never states when to prefer this over sibling list/declare tools such as declare_env_names or delete_env_name. Context is clear, exclusions are only implicit.

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