get_api_key

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It accurately states that the tool returns the key if stored, otherwise provides provisioning guidance. This reveals the two possible outcomes and suggests it is a read-only lookup, which is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior adequately. It specifies the return value in both cases, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. However, it could have mentioned that the operation is read-only and does not modify state.

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% for the single 'service' parameter, which already includes examples. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating 'for a service', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a stored API key') and the resource ('for a service'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the two possible outcomes ('key if stored, or provisioning guidance if not'), which contrasts with other tools like store, provision, or remove.

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 used when retrieving a stored API key, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like check_api_key or provision_api_key. The sibling list is not referenced for guidance.

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