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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists returned fields but does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens when the key does not exist, whether authentication is required, or any rate-limit or error behavior.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the returned fields are front-loaded after the resource label. Its terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 simple single-key lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description does provide the returned field categories. However, it leaves the keyId parameter and error/not-found behavior completely unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'keyId', and the description does not explain it beyond implying that a key is identified. The phrase 'One Key' gives a weak hint that keyId refers to a key, but no format, range, or source is provided.

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 identifies the resource ('One Key') and enumerates the specific fields returned: glyphs, owner, signal/attestation counts, and recent signals. This is clearer than a bare name restatement and distinguishes it from sibling list/state tools, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like z1n_list_signals or z1n_get_attestable_signals. The description only states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer that this is a single-key lookup.

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