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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface the critical trait that the key is one-time/irreversible and gated on canDownload. It omits authentication/team-role requirements, whether a re-download is possible after this call, and how the payload is delivered (file, base64, path).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the precondition is placed where an agent will read it first.

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 no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavior, yet it never explains what the call returns (the raw .p8 content, a file location, or a reference) or what the agent should do if canDownload is already false. For a download/secret-exfiltration tool this is a real gap.

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 50%: notification_message is documented in the schema, and api_key_id has no description. The phrase 'for an existing API key' only loosely gestures at api_key_id and does not say how to obtain a valid id or what format it takes, so the description adds little beyond 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 a specific verb ('Download') and a specific artifact (the one-time .p8 private key for an existing API key), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like create_asc_api_key or list_asc_api_keys. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 a clear precondition — 'when canDownload is still true' — which implies when to call and when the call will fail. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. create_asc_api_key to mint a new key, list_asc_api_keys to find the id) and gives no guidance on what to do if canDownload is false.

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