Verify a key

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

The description adds behaviors beyond the annotations: it is 'exempt from the write rate limit', 'touches no content', and returns the key kind and scopes. It also explicitly states 'Read only. Nothing is changed', reinforcing the readOnly and non-destructive hints without contradicting them.

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 core purpose, followed by efficiently worded details on return value, use cases, and rate-limit implications. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and its side-effect-free nature. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter details since none exist, making this score fitting.

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 opens with 'Verify a key', a specific verb+resource pairing, and elaborates that it returns the key type and scopes. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling content-management tools, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'confirm credentials during setup' and 'as a liveness probe', plus notes it is the cheapest authenticated call. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent effectively.

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