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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and rises to it: it discloses the masking behavior (only 12-char key_prefix, never plaintext post-issuance), the JWT-only authentication design and its rationale, and the exact endpoint. This is substantive behavioral context, not just a restatement of the tool's name.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return details, use cases, alternative guidance, and auth requirements in a logical order. Every sentence adds distinct value; there is no redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned enterprise_buyers fields and the masked key list format, plus the auth requirement and boundary conditions. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional structured metadata.

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 trivially provides 100% coverage and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds the implicit auth requirement OPEDD_BUYER_JWT, but there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond that.

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 and resource: 'Fetch the authenticated buyer's account profile + masked API key list'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit_events or verify_license by focusing on the buyer account and API key inventory.

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 lists concrete use cases (post-signup verification, buyer dashboard mental model, audit prep) and names an alternative channel ('buyer portal at opedd.com/buyer') for mid-lifecycle license details, effectively telling the agent when not to use this tool.

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