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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: the secret is returned only once, the first issue grants 1 free credit, and the credit.grant reason is first_key. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and one-time behavior.

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 compact and information-dense, covering endpoint, install flow, auth, free credit, and cost guidance in a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly dense but each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, auth details, one-time secret behavior, and credit implications. It could mention the response format, but the one-time secret note partially covers that. Overall, complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining the endpoint, authentication, and the one-time secret return. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description adds relevant context about the operation.

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 states the tool's purpose: mint a caller key via POST /keys, and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like revoke_key and rotate_key. The title adds context about OCR/vision text, but the description itself is specific about the action and resource.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: at bot install start, with the sole advertised entry at the given URL. It also mentions authentication preferences (Bearer vs X-API-Key alias) and a prerequisite to quote cost with quote_credits before ocr_extract. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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