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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: this returns guidance only, performs no provisioning, and explicitly does not guarantee a free allowance — a caveat an agent would otherwise over-promise.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the positive purpose followed by the exclusion list. No filler, and every clause carries either scope or a caveat.

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 an output schema present and a rich annotation set, the description covers the remaining burden: what the tool is for and what it will not do. Return-format details are correctly left to the output schema, so nothing essential 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-param tools applies. No parameter details are omitted because none exist.

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 (explain how to apply) and resource (manually provisioned Velox Partner API access), plus the key-handling advice. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_integration_example or fetch, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it short of a 5.

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 negative scoping ('Does not create accounts, issue keys, send an application or promise a universal free allowance') effectively tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice, which is strong routing guidance for a zero-param explainer. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the cases it excludes.

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