List application registry credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is never returned (token values, encrypted envelopes, fingerprints, key versions), the required permission (applications:read), and the deliberate unavailability of write operations so secrets don't enter model context.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, all front-loaded and informative, with no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence contributes a distinct fact, so it is efficient rather than bloated.

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 compensates by stating exactly what fields are and are not returned, the required scope and permission, and where to go for the excluded write operations. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents orderNo in detail, including pattern and examples. The description only adds that it must be one 'owned' service, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 non-secret private registry credential metadata') plus scope ('for one owned service') and concrete examples (Docker Hub, GHCR, exact custom HTTPS hostnames). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the many other list_* siblings.

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 clear context for use (one owned service) and explicitly routes the related-but-unavailable operations (creation/rotation) to the VPSnet panel or REST API, with a reason. However, it doesn't state when NOT to call this listing tool itself, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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