list_discovery_credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that only metadata is returned and that secret fields are never exposed, which is important for an agent handling credentials.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The return-field summary and the secret-exclusion caveat are packed efficiently.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the metadata fields returned and explicitly rules out secret fields. It does not describe filtering or pagination behavior, but the schema covers parameters.

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%, so the three optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add filter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List Discovery credential METADATA." It is clear what is returned and what is excluded, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sibling list tools such as list_credential_aliases.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisite context. The listing purpose is implied by the name and description, but no real selection guidance is provided.

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