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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds only the detail that it returns scope and permissions. This is useful context beyond the annotation, but it does not disclose any side effects, potential failures, or response format. For a simple getter with no parameters, this level of disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum efficiency for a zero-parameter tool.

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 read-only, no-argument tool, the description covers the essential information: what it retrieves (scope and permissions) and for which entity (current API key). It does not specify return format or error cases, but given the simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (an empty object). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not, so this dimension is at baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'scope and permissions of the current API key', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rbac_get_my_access by specifying it targets the API key, not the user's general access. This is a specific and accurate statement of function.

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 when you need to inspect the current API key's permissions, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as rbac_get_my_access or build_whoami. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool's name and purpose alone.

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