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

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the critical behavior that the secret is returned exactly once and that the first issue grants a free credit with reason 'first_key'. It also notes the authentication alias. It stops short of idempotency or rate-limit details, but the disclosed behavior is genuinely valuable.

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?

Every sentence carries operational weight: the endpoint, the boot sequence, the authentication preference, the one-time secret, the free credit, and the cross-tool recommendation. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers everything required to call it correctly: the HTTP method and path, authentication style, the nature of the response (one-time secret), the side effect (free credit), and the recommended prerequisite (quote_credits). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant non-parameter context (endpoint, auth method, one-time secret) that an agent needs, even though there is no schema to document. It does not repeat or contradict the schema, which is effectively empty.

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 states the verb 'Mint' with the resource 'caller key' and the exact endpoint (POST /keys). It also names the specific use case ('url smoke, headless qa') which distinguishes it from siblings like verify_key or smoke. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer Authorization: Bearer; X-API-Key is an alias' for authentication, and instructs 'Quote cost with quote_credits before smoke' to route to a sibling tool. It also sets the sequence context with 'Bot install starts at GET https://shelf.kymac.co/llms.txt', making the usage conditions clear.

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