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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the base safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the key is never revealed, and authentication is required. This goes beyond what the annotations state and is relevant for an agent deciding whether this operation is safe and how it behaves.

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 a compact two-sentence structure: one sentence for the operation and key constraint, one for requirements and return values. Every element earns its place and the core behavioral point is front-loaded.

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 tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the key security constraint, the authentication prerequisite, and the high-level return contents. The only minor gap is that 'metadata' and 'status' are not elaborated, so an agent may not know exactly what statuses/metadata to expect; still, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%, with only the generic feedback field documented and _requestId left undocumented. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. However, both parameters are generic platform plumbing rather than tool-specific operation parameters, so the description's silence is not very costly. This is a marginal case and the extra context is not needed.

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 clearly identifies the action ('check'), the resource ('access key'), and the specific outcome ('without revealing key'). The 'without revealing key' clause distinguishes it from the sibling tool getUserAccessKey, making it a genuine 5 rather than merely a standard read operation.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs access key status without exposing the key itself. It also states the prerequisite of authentication. However, it does not explicitly state what conditions would favor this tool over the closely related getUserAccessKey or other sibling tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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