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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description needn't reiterate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: distinguishes completed vs. pending attachments, names the 'host' field, mentions 'get_secrets_link' for pending variables, and explicitly states no connection URL is returned. This is useful transparency beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination.

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 sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose ('backing services...'), then details output differences (completed vs. pending), then clarifies a limitation (no URL). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), and the description covers output nuances. However, it omits the parameter's meaning and doesn't clarify how it differs from list_services or attach_external, which are present siblings. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.

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% and there's one required parameter (project_id) that isn't described in either schema or description. The description adds no information about the parameter's format, constraints, or whether it's the project ID or tenant ID. Baseline 3 for one parameter with no added semantics but not misleading.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'backing services this project's tenant supplies themselves.' This is clear, though it doesn't explicitly say 'list' or mention the project_id parameter, and sibling differentiation is only partial (distinguishing external vs. internal services is implied by 'tenant supplies themselves' but not contrasted with list_services or attach_external).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_services, attach_external, or get_project_detail. The description implies usage by describing the output format, but doesn't state when-not-to-use or name any alternatives.

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