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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one high-value behavioral fact — the key is shown only in this response, i.e. it is unrecoverable afterward — but says nothing about key scope/permissions, expiry, rate limits, or whether it requires elevated auth.

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 terse sentences with zero waste; the irreversibility warning is placed immediately after the purpose statement, front-loading the most important fact.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully says where the key is returned, but for a credential-minting mutation it omits scope, expiry, and the "only once" consequence beyond the moment of creation. Adequate but thin.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter "label" is documented nowhere. The description never explains what the label is for (display name? uniqueness? length constraints?), so it fails to compensate for the 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+resource ("Cria outra chave de API") and clarifies the intended consumer ("para outro agente ou sistema"). It is clearly distinguishable from revoke_api_key by the create/mint action, though the sibling is never named.

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 parenthetical "for another agent or system" implies the use case (provisioning credentials for a separate caller), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of revoke_api_key as the counterpart, and no stated prerequisites or limits.

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