panelica_api_keys_get_v1_api_keys_key_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds operational context by specifying 'Required scopes: accounts:read' and the GET method, giving the agent auth prerequisite knowledge that annotations do not convey. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by endpoint, category, scope, and read-only information. 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations but not padded; there are no wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter GET endpoint, the description covers the endpoint, required scope, and read-only nature, which is largely sufficient for invocation. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the response contains or what happens when the key does not exist, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 input schema fully documents the single key_id parameter as 'Path parameter: key_id' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the path placeholder and adds no additional format, constraints, or behavior for the parameter.

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 ('Get') and resource ('api key'), and the HTTP path '/v1/api-keys/:key_id' makes clear this retrieves a single API key by ID rather than the collection. It is not explicitly differentiated from the sibling list endpoint by name, but the singular resource and path parameter are enough to disambiguate.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling list/create/update/regenerate API-key endpoints. Required scopes are listed, but there is no when-to-use, alternative recommendation, or exclusion.

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