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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the one-time display of the api_key, the returned fields, the lack of approval/KYC, and that it is the only setup step. This goes beyond the schema and gives an agent critical operational 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?

Two dense sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds useful information: purpose, conditions, return values, and a caution about the key.

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 one-parameter registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what is returned, the one-time secret, and where it fits in the contract workflow. The main gap is the undocumented agent_name parameter, but overall it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions agent_name or what value it should take. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 and resource ('Get an API key') and gives the purpose ('so you can order or deliver work'). It also names the returned values and positions itself as the only setup step for contract tools, clearly distinguishing its role among sibling tools.

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?

Says when to use it: before using contract tools, and gives strong contextual signals ('Free, instant, no human approval and no KYC'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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