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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds critical behavior beyond annotations: it returns a pcc_live_* key, the key must be sent as 'Authorization: Bearer <key>', the key is shown only once, and all other endpoints fail with 401 without it. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs.

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 tightly front-loaded with the most important instruction first. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail without repetition.

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 provisioning tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return value, one-time visibility, required downstream auth usage, and consequence of omission. Parameter semantics are covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only restates the email-or-walletAddress choice already present in the schema, and does not explain 'capability' or 'name' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Provisions an API key for the operator.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as list_api_keys and revoke_api_key. 'CALL THIS FIRST' makes the intended role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('CALL THIS FIRST') and why ('Without it, all other endpoints return 401'). It also clarifies accepted identity inputs ('email OR walletAddress'). This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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