get_key_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool validates a key and reports status/version, but doesn't explicitly say it is read-only, describe failure behavior, or note any side effects. The read-only nature of a status check is fairly evident, so this is a mid-range score.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first states the core purpose and the second usefully points to a relevant sibling for plan details.

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 no-parameter status tool with no output schema, it provides the essential outcome (key validity, API status, version) and routes plan-related needs to get_usage. The main gap is the unaddressed overlap with get_api_status, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 concrete action ('Confirm the API key works') and the resource it applies to, plus what it reports (API status and version). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_api_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one alternative ('Use get_usage to see the key's plan'), but doesn't explain when to call get_key_status instead of get_api_status or the other status-related tools. The intended use is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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