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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description is free to add behavioral value. It does: passwords and OTP secrets are never returned, only metadata flags indicating whether they are set. It also clarifies the visibility boundary. It omits pagination or ordering details, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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, front-loaded with the core scope and behavior, with no filler. The sensitive-data caveat is stated efficiently and the optional domain filter is mentioned without extra prose.

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?

The description covers the result scope, the optional filter, and the important return-value constraint (no passwords/OTP). However, a required `userId` parameter is left essentially unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. Without an output schema, more guidance on pagination or returned metadata fields would also be helpful.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the optional `domain` parameter, but the required `userId` parameter is neither described in the schema nor explained in the description. The relationship between `userId`, the caller, and the current team remains ambiguous, and `team_id` semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 names the exact resource (browser-login credentials), the verb (list), and precisely scopes the result: team-shared credentials with user_id NULL plus the caller's personal logins. This clearly distinguishes it from credential or secret management 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?

It gives clear context of when this tool is appropriate: listing credentials visible to the caller in the current team, with an optional domain filter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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