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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the key is never returned, the output shape (yes/no plus timestamp), and that identity is transport-derived. It implies read-only behavior through 'reports' but does not explicitly state absence of side effects, which is a minor gap.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: output definition, safety guarantee, when-to-use, and parameter clarification. The most important info is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no filler exists.

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 simple no-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, authentication behavior, and usage rationale. An agent can call it correctly and interpret its result without missing information.

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?

There are zero parameters and the empty schema is fully covered. The description goes beyond schema by stating 'Takes no parameters' and explaining why: identity comes from the MCP transport, not the call. This eliminates any confusion about why no parameters exist, exceeding the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('reports') and resource (account status focused on BotKelp account_api_key linkage), plus the exact output (yes/no and last linked/rotated). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools, which handle projects, components, scaffold, or site profile, not account key status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to check whether key-gated tools will work before calling them.' Also clarifies no parameters are needed and identity comes from the MCP transport, guiding the agent's invocation behavior. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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