Get organization public key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the name — no note on key format, rotation behavior, or what happens if the org has no key.

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?

A single six-word phrase with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing; front-loading is fine but there is almost no content to structure.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified: identifier format, the role of wrapper params, and the shape of the returned key are all unaddressed.

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 0% on 4 parameters, and the description only implicitly identifies that an org must be specified. It says nothing about the required org_id or the form/params/json_body wrapper parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Get') and specific resource ('org's public RSA key'), which is more precise than a generic 'get organization keys'. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as vaultwarden_get_organization_keys, vaultwarden_get_public_keys, or vaultwarden_bulk_public_keys.

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 on when to use this versus the several public-key-related siblings. No prerequisites (e.g., admin rights, org membership) or context for the call are stated.

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