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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond them: the secret is returned only once and must not be placed in chat logs, code, or client-side code.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the handling constraint. Every sentence contributes; only the chat-log warning is slightly tangential to tool invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the key return value ('Returns the secret once'). Combined with the parameters and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though auth/permission requirements are unstated.

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 name, expiry (with default and enum), and account_id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 'confirm the name' hint, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create') and resource ('GolfCore Course Data API key') scoped to the signed-in person's account, which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like api_revoke_key, though the create/revoke inverse is self-evident.

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?

It gives a workflow prerequisite ('Confirm the name with the person first') and downstream handling instructions, but never states when this tool should or should not be used relative to alternatives. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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