check_configuration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: it never returns key values (a privacy/exposure guarantee) and it does not validate entitlements (an explicit scope limit). It is silent on auth requirements, side effects, and what the report actually looks like.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope limitation front-loaded right after the core action. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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-parameter, no-output-schema check, the description conveys the essential contract: a boolean-style report on key presence with no value leakage and no entitlement validation. It would be stronger if it sketched the return shape, but nothing critical 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The empty schema at 100% coverage confirms the baseline of 4 applies here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Report whether keys are set') and immediately scopes it ('never their values'). It is unambiguously distinct from the paper-oriented siblings (search_papers, read_passage, etc.), though it doesn't name a sibling it could be confused with.

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?

'Does not validate entitlements' is a useful when-not boundary, steering an agent away from using it as an entitlement/authorization check. However, there is no positive guidance about when an agent should reach for this tool versus other diagnostic steps.

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