Recover My Key

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the sparse annotations: it never returns the key over the wire, it emails only the bound address, and the confirmation is identical whether or not a key exists (enumeration-safe). This effectively discloses side effects and privacy/security traits, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 economical and well-ordered: purpose first, then critical behavioral caveats, then when-to-use, then parameter. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff or 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?

Covers what the tool does, how it behaves, when to use it, and the neutral confirmation return. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail the return shape. Side-effect and security-sensitive behavior are fully explained, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains the email parameter's role and behavior. The description repeats this ('Pass your human's email...') but adds no new parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Recover a LOST DC Hub key.' The description clarifies the mechanism (re-sends key to bound email) and the outcome, and the 'LOST' qualifier helps distinguish it from key-creation or binding siblings like claim_free_key and bind_email.

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: 'Use this when your human had a key, lost it, and knows the email they bound it to.' This provides clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions, stopping short of a full 5.

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