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

The description discloses numerous non-obvious behaviors beyond the minimal annotations: scopes must be a subset of this token's own grant, `read` is always included, expiry is mandatory (1–90 days, default 30, never 'never'), minted tokens can never mint tokens, `spend` is human-granted only, and the plaintext is returned exactly once with only its hash stored. Annotations only provide readOnly/destructive hints, so this adds substantial behavioral 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 dense but every sentence adds critical operational detail: purpose, usage timing, scope attenuation rules, authentication requirements, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and follows a logical flow without redundancy or fluff.

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 token-minting tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers lifecycle usage, security constraints, authentication prerequisites, and return-value handling. It leaves no major ambiguity for the agent to invoke the tool correctly, including what the token can and cannot do.

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?

Although the input schema already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches their meaning: scopes must be a subset of the caller's grant, `read` is always granted, `spend` and legacy `billing` are never mintable via this tool, and expiry is mandatory with a default of 30 days. These constraints go well beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Mint') and a clearly defined resource ('PROJECT-scoped management token'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_api_key or create_credential. It also specifies the token prefix (`er_mcp_`), its intended use for MCP and REST, and a key functional exclusion (cannot authenticate relay traffic).

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 it after create_project to configure a fresh project, or for any project you already own.' It also names an alternative path for spend-scoped keys ('mint a spend-scoped key from the project's panel instead') and spells out the required authentication context (ACCOUNT-scoped token and `config` scope).

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