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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly details all output fields and their formats (SPKI DER hex for public key, PKCS#8 DER hex for private key, base64 encodings, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state that a new random key pair is generated each time or discuss any side effects, though for a keygen tool the generation semantics are largely implicit.

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 well-organized with clear labeled sections (e.g., algorithm selection, security level reference, output, typical usage). It is dense but every sentence adds unique value, and nothing is redundant or filler. The structure makes the information easy to scan.

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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it lists all return fields, explains the algorithm variants, and connects to the typical key life-cycle with related tools. There are no significant informational gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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 provides full coverage of the single `algorithm` parameter with enum values and a default. The description adds meaningful context by mapping each algorithm to NIST security levels and AES equivalents, which helps an agent choose an appropriate value. This goes beyond the schema's bare enum labels.

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 the tool generates ML-DSA key pairs per FIPS 204, using a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('ML-DSA key pair'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming related sign/verify tools and other key generation tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides concrete usage context: 'after generating, the private key is used for ml_dsa_sign and the public key for ml_dsa_verify'. It also explains algorithm choices and security levels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, but the integration with sibling tools offers clear practical guidance.

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