Generate merchant RSA keys

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns the public key and file path of the private key, the private key itself is never returned, and no configuration is needed. This is sufficient for a simple key generation tool, though it doesn't mention file naming or security details.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the output details, and the usage context. Front-loaded with a clear verb and resource, no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It even explains the next step (register public key), making it self-contained for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics. The description compensates by explaining the output (public key and private key path) and the purpose, which is more than enough for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Generate an RSA 2048 keypair for NovaPay merchant onboarding,' which clearly identifies the action (generate), resource (keypair), and context (NovaPay onboarding). It is specific and differentiates from sibling payment/session tools, making it easy to select.

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?

States it is 'the first onboarding step' and 'works without any configuration,' giving clear context for when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools are unrelated (payments/sessions), so no alternative ambiguity exists.

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