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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the returned secret is a live credential shown exactly once and never retrievable again, and that it must be persisted immediately — critical behavior for a destructive-flagged mutation. It also names the required authorization scope and who holds it.

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 front-loaded sentences with the action first and the one-time-secret warning immediately after. Slightly dense phrasing ('a secret, a live credential for the organization') but no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return (a secret shown once), plus auth and irreversibility. It leaves the default scopes and expiry to the schema, which already covers them, so nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with name, scopes (including defaults and grantable values), and expires_in_days fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 ('Mint a new squirrelscan API key for this organization and return it') and its scope. No sibling tool competes with key creation, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Explains the intended downstream use (save as SQUIRRELSCAN_API_KEY for CLI, CI, MCP) and the prerequisite scope (keys:write, granted to owner/admin via OAuth). It also states an exclusion-like constraint: minted keys cannot mint keys. No sibling alternatives exist to route against, which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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