validate_bls_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral fact: a mistyped key silently downgrades to the unregistered tier without an error, which is essential for understanding the tool's failure mode. It also implies a read-only test operation.

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 short sentences: the first establishes the primary action, the second adds the crucial warning and usage guidance. No redundant information and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, an output schema, and the absence of annotations, the description covers the purpose, the when, the behavioral nuance, and the risk. It leaves no critical gaps for the user.

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 already fully describes the single optional parameter (key, with a default and explanation of omission). The description does not add additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description uses a concrete verb ('Test') and specifies the exact resource ('BLS registration key against the live API') and outcome ('report which tier it unlocks'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_connection or get_account_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?

Provides explicit timing ('Run this once after setting BLS_API_KEY') and explains the consequence of not using it. While it doesn't name alternatives, no alternative exists among siblings for this purpose.

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