validate_api_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly doesn't repeat those. It adds value by specifying the check's semantics (valid and active) and the return (client identifier), plus the operational guidance to run first on auth failures. This is useful context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and condition are front-loaded, and the return value is included. 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 zero-param tool with an output schema, the description explains what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description correctly doesn't waste space on parameter details. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate; no compensation needed.

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 ('Check') and resource ('RANSOMWARE_LIVE_API_KEY'), and explains the purpose: validity and activity. It also notes the return value (client identifier), distinguishing it from all sibling tools, none of which handle authentication validation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Run this first when any other tool reports an authentication failure.' This gives clear context for ordering and troubleshooting, and implies it's a diagnostic first step. No exclusions needed since there are no alternative validation tools.

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