associations_get_association_key_by_key_name

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which already tell the agent it is a safe read operation. The description merely restates the action and does not disclose any additional behavior (e.g., side effects, required permissions, error conditions).

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 concise (one short sentence) but is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It provides no more information than the tool name itself, wasting the opportunity to add value. It is minimalism without substance.

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 should explain what the tool returns. It does not. It also fails to provide any context about the 'association key' concept, the purpose of the lookup, or any prerequisite conditions. For a tool with two parameters and no return specification, the description is utterly inadequate.

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 coverage is only 50% (only locationId has a description). The description does not clarify the key_name parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its format or meaning. With one required parameter undocumented, this is a critical deficiency.

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 and resource ('Get association key'), which distinguishes it from tools like associations_get_association_by_id or associations_get_association_by_object_keys by indicating it retrieves a key by its name. However, it does not explain what an 'association key' is, leaving ambiguity about the tool's exact purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or which sibling tools to prefer. The description is entirely bare, giving the agent no decision support.

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