get_program_credentials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose access gating (invited/accepted and KYC-verified) and conditional secret availability ('when the API returns them'), but it does not explicitly state the read-only/side-effect profile or authentication requirements. The 'Get' verb partially covers this, but not fully.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then access caveat and sibling routing, then an Args block. Every sentence adds action-relevant information with 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?

An output schema is present, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description provides everything needed for invocation: all parameters, the main access constraints, and the appropriate alternative tool when credentials require a request.

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 0%, but the description documents all three parameters with meaningful plain-language explanations: program_slug as identifier, include_secrets as toggling passwords/secrets, and raw as returning raw JSON instead of a summary. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('credential pools and any assigned credentials for a specific program'), which is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from request_program_credentials by describing the request path, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly says to use request_program_credentials when credentials require a request first, and warns that some programs only expose credential pools after invite/acceptance and KYC verification. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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