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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the key is 'current' (i.e. caller-derived, not looked up by id), but says nothing about what the returned scope data looks like or whether permissions are aggregated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return-value expectations can be set, and it says only 'scope and permissions' without indicating shape, granularity, or whether it includes role bindings. For a tool whose entire value is its return payload, that leaves a real gap.

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 zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The phrase 'current API key' usefully reinforces that identity comes from the session rather than an input, which is the only semantic question this schema raises.

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 ('Get') and resource ('scope and permissions of the current API key'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the similar sibling rbac_get_my_access, so an agent cannot fully rule the alternative out from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'current API key' – it suggests no arguments are needed and that it operates on the caller's own credential. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to rbac_get_my_access or rbac_check_permission as alternatives.

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