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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds critical behavioral disclosure: the raw secret is only returned once ('in THIS response only'), and minting is constrained by the calling key's mode/scope. This materially changes how an agent should handle the response. Minor gaps remain (e.g., response shape, auth requirements), but the added context is substantial.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action first, then the most important response caveat, then privilege constraints. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a mutation with no output schema: it flags the one-time secret, the allowed minting hierarchy, and the scope. It does not spell out the full response object or error conditions, but the essential usage and safety information is present.

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 75% schema coverage, most parameters already have descriptions. The description adds valuable meaning about the mode/kind relationship ('test key mints only test keys; a live secret key may mint the sandbox pair') and scope restriction ('A key can never mint one broader than itself'), helping the agent choose valid enum combinations beyond what the schema lists.

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 ('Mint') and resource ('a key') and narrows the tool's domain with 'Scope: keys.' This is clearly distinct from sibling operations like list_keys, revoke_key, and rotate_key, so an agent can select it for key creation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: minting a key in the 'keys' scope. It also provides when-not conditions with 'A key can never mint one broader than itself' and 'a test key mints only test keys,' though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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