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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds context by enumerating the returned facts (role values, domain, project creation ability, plan) which help an agent branch on the result. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., invalid or expired key), which keeps it at 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by a decision cue. There's no filler and every clause adds information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of the return payload is what makes the tool callable in practice; it does that well. It falls just short of complete because it doesn't explain error behavior when the key is invalid or unscoped.

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?

Zero parameters, baseline 4. There is nothing to disambiguate, and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

It uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a specific resource ('your API key's scope') and enumerates exactly what is returned: role, domain, project-creation capability, and plan. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from similar siblings like apikey_get_scope or rbac_get_my_access.

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?

'Call this to decide the flow' is a useful implied usage cue ('call this first/early'), but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives. An agent must infer whether this differs from apikey_get_scope or rbac_get_my_access on its own.

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