gdbx_apikey_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the tool returns 'owner prefix + address', which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether verification is a read-only operation, whether it makes external network calls, whether it can fail (e.g., invalid key), or any side effects. The return value hint is helpful but incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Verify') and the resource, then states the return value. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the input and the return value. However, it lacks details about failure modes (e.g., what happens with an invalid key), whether the operation is read-only, and any prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'key' parameter as 'Full GDBx****AB key'. The description adds the format hint 'GDBx****AB' and implies the key is the only input, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('GDBx****AB API key'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on API key verification rather than DID resolution, sync, name resolution, providers, checkout, or profile operations. It could be slightly clearer about what 'verify' means (e.g., validity check vs. ownership check), but it is not a tautology and is clearly differentiated from siblings.

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 for verifying a GDBx API key, which is a clear context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like gdbx_did_resolve or gdbx_name_resolve are clearly different, but no explicit routing guidance is provided. This is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.

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