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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds important non-obvious behaviors: 'Save the key — shown once' (one-time display) and 'Free tier: 100 calls/day' (rate limit). These go beyond the basic 'generate' action. However, it does not mention whether the key is tied to the owner, if it can be regenerated, or what happens if lost—details that could be relevant for a credential-creating tool.

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 two sentences and every word earns its place: it states the action, the resource, the free-tier limit, and the critical 'shown once' warning. No filler, no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what is generated, the free tier limit, and the one-time display behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return value format (e.g., 'returns the key as a string'), but 'shown once' implies the key is returned. It could also mention how the key should be used with other TeleKash tools, but the brief scope makes this acceptable.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters (owner_id: 'Agent or user identifier', owner_email: 'Contact email (optional)'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the guidance, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a free TeleKash API key.' It also adds scope ('free tier: 100 calls/day') and distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which are read-only get/list/search operations. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiated.

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 implies usage: you call this when you need an API key. It includes useful context about the free tier and rate limit, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., 'use this to obtain credentials before calling other TeleKash endpoints') or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is present but mostly implicit.

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