Create a proofread.law account and API key

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, but the description discloses key rotation on repeated signup, the 409 on confirmed/paying accounts, session adoption of the key, the need to persist it in PROOFREAD_API_KEY, rate limits, and quota limits. This goes well beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence carries necessary operational detail—purpose, usage trigger, email requirement, key handling, repeat-call behavior, quotas, and rate limit. Dense but not bloated, with key actions front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it explains the critical outcome (key shown once), error condition (409), post-call persistence steps, and account limits. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle the result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real constraints: email must be the account owner's real inbox and placeholder domains are rejected, which is more than the schema's phrasing. Agent_name gets no additional meaning, but overall parameter semantics are enhanced.

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 and resource: 'Open a proofread.law account for its owner and get an API key, in one call'. It also names the endpoint and explicitly differentiates from siblings by tying its use to quota ownership and billing_link sequencing.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: 'when the user wants their own quota instead of the anonymous per-IP free tier, or before billing_link'. It also implies when not to use by describing 409 for confirmed/paying accounts and warns never to send the key elsewhere, giving clear routing and safety guidance.

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