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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotation: the secret is never returned, which sets accurate expectations about the response and privacy boundary. This is meaningful supplementary disclosure.

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 contain all essential information with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the API endpoint reference is a compact, useful addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-get operation with one required parameter, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned (metadata) and what is not returned (secret). The absence of a richer return-shape description is a minor gap but not a blocker for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'id' is documented as 'The API key id.' The description only adds 'by id', which reinforces the parameter's role but does not add format, source, or constraints beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single API key's metadata by id'. It clearly differentiates from sibling list tools like portkey_list_api_keys by specifying 'a single' key identified by id, and the extra note that the secret is never returned adds important precision.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving one API key's metadata by id, which is a clear context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the single-by-id framing makes the appropriate usage unambiguous.

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