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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that — results are filtered by token permissions and values are never returned, which prevents the agent from expecting secrets in the output. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or behavior when neither or both parameters are supplied.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core promise (names, never values) is front-loaded, followed immediately by the parameter rule and the sibling routing.

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 must characterize the return value and does so precisely ('names and who attached them, never the values'). Combined with the parameter rule and alternative routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3; however the description adds meaning the schema does not convey — that issueKey and pageId are alternatives ('Pass issueKey or pageId'), which matters because the schema marks both optional with zero required parameters and gives no mutual-exclusion hint.

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 the credentials attached to an issue or a wiki page'), plus scope ('that this token may read') and exactly what is returned ('names and who attached them, never the values'). It is clearly distinguishable from reveal_credential and create_credential without opening either 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?

Gives the selection rule explicitly: 'Pass issueKey or pageId' for this tool, and 'Use reveal_credential to read one value, and only when you are about to use it' as the alternative with its qualifying condition. This is exactly the when/when-not routing an agent needs.

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