BYO app credentials: stored platforms with field names, and the fields each accepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/app-credentials) and, more usefully, indicates the response shape is platform entries with their field names and accepted fields. It says nothing about whether only configured platforms or all supported platforms are returned, nor about auth/workspace scoping.

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?

One compact sentence with the endpoint in parentheses — no padding or repetition. It loses a point only because the sentence is noun-phrase shaped rather than leading with an action, which makes the purpose slower to parse.

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?

A no-param, no-output-schema read is a simple tool, and the description does sketch what comes back. However, for a 'list what's stored' tool the critical question — configured-only vs. all available platforms, and the shape of each entry — is left ambiguous, which is where an agent would most likely misread 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The parenthetical endpoint reference is a harmless extra detail.

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 title/description conveys the resource (BYO app credentials) and what is returned (stored platforms plus field names and accepted fields), but it omits an explicit verb — an agent has to infer 'list' from the tool name suffix. It is distinguishable from appCredentials_set/remove by the 'stored' framing, but that differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives, appCredentials_set (to configure a platform) and appCredentials_remove (to delete one). An agent reading only the description gets no cue about which of these three to pick.

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