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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: human review by the platform owner, typical turnaround (business hours, within a day), the returned requestToken and the obligation to save it, the exact permission scope of the issued key, and daily/monthly quotas. Nothing about the write-adjacent consequences is left implicit.

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?

Front-loads the action and self-service note, then proceeds through trigger, process, return value, permissions and quota in tight em-dash-separated clauses. Every sentence carries unique information and nothing is repeated from the schema beyond what the agent needs in context.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return value (requestToken) and its downstream use, plus review latency and quota. For an onboarding/authorization tool this is complete enough to act on without further discovery.

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 100%, so every one of the 5 parameters is already documented with purpose and required/optional status. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('запросить собственный API-ключ к этому MCP-серверу') and explicitly marks it as self-service. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming check_api_key_request as the follow-up tool and dealer_order as the one tool the issued key cannot use.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — call it when you hit '401 missing_api_key' on a write tool, listing make_kp, make_project and tender packages as examples. It also states the exclusion (dealer_order is handled by a manager), so the agent knows when NOT to expect this route to work.

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