Check API Key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds that the tool checks both key validity and API reachability, which is useful, but it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or what happens on failure beyond the structured output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the tool's core purpose efficiently and does not repeat the name or title.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool with readOnly annotation and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose: validating the API key and reachability. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

The input schema is empty, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters requiring elaboration. The description correctly implies the tool needs no arguments, which is sufficient for this zero-parameter tool.

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 ('Verify') and a clear resource ('Prosp API key'), and it states both aspects of the check: key validity and API reachability. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_server_info.

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 implies the tool is for validating credentials and connectivity, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any preconditions. The usage context is inferable rather than directly instructed.

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