recover_my_key

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

Description adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: key is emailed, never returned over wire, confirmation is identical regardless of key existence (enumeration-safe). Annotations only state non-read-only, non-destructive, etc., so description fully compensates.

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: starts with purpose, then behavioral traits, then usage condition. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, description fully covers behavior: how recover works, security guarantees, and confirmation behavior. Agent has all necessary info to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'email'. Description adds extra context about key being re-sent to inbox and never over wire, but schema already says similar. Baseline 3 applies as description adds marginal value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool recovers a lost DC Hub key, specifying verb (recover) and resource (key) with condition (lost). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only key recovery tool among many analysis tools.

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use: when human had key, lost it, and knows bound email. It doesn't discuss when not to use or alternatives, but the condition is clear enough for correct selection.

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