is_key_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a convenience check and not authoritative, which adds some transparency. However, it does not describe potential side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool that checks state.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose. Each sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a key activity check) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context and provides a caveat about authority. It would benefit from noting the return type (e.g., boolean) but is otherwise adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Hex-encoded Ed25519 public key'). The description adds no new semantic information about the parameters; it only restates their existence. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' and clearly identifies the resource: 'public key in a DID document'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it's an SDK convenience check, implying it's not the authoritative gateway check.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('SDK convenience check') and when to use an alternative ('gateway enforcement is authoritative'), providing clear guidance on the tool's role.

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