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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so admirably. It discloses critical traits: the key is shown exactly once, must not be printed, supports a header or argument path, strips the key before billing/persistence, and notes the tool is always free with no existing API key required. This is rich, actionable context.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, outcome, usage, fallback, caveat, security, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary action and structured logically, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the complexity (API key creation, security constraints, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is returned (live key plus trial calls), how to use it, when to use an alternative, and security handling, leaving no critical gaps for selection or invocation.

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 100% and parameter descriptions are already detailed. The description adds some context (e.g., acceptTerms must follow human authorization, and the apiKey argument for another tool), but it does not substantially enrich the meaning of the schema's individual parameters beyond what is already documented.

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 opens with an explicit verb+resource: 'Create an EnergyAI production API key' and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_builder_upgrade_link by stating when that alternative is needed instead. It clearly defines the tool's scope and outcome.

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 when-to-use guidance, including the fallback: 'If the operator has not already authorized the terms, call get_builder_upgrade_link and surface its one-screen human activation URL instead.' It also gives a concrete next step ('start with review_installer_quote') and notes the header-vs-apiKey handling conditions.

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