Get API key

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: the exact 403 apiKeyForbidden outcome for any other id, the surprising fact that this holds even for non-existent ids, and an explicit guarantee that the full key and stored secrets are never returned. This is precisely the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the access restrictions. Every clause carries information: field list, auth boundary, error code, and secret-exclusion guarantee.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the metadata fields. Combined with the access and secrecy guarantees, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single parameter, the schema already documents the id ('API key ID from list_api_keys... the calling key's own ID'). The description's access constraint largely restates that, so the baseline of 3 applies despite adding minor reinforcement.

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 ('Get metadata for one active API key') and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from list_api_keys and get_api_key_activity. However, it never explicitly names the sibling alternatives, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told it.

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?

Gives a clear usage context by specifying that API-key callers can only fetch the calling key's own ID, which is exactly the kind of precondition an agent needs. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., 'to list all keys use list_api_keys' or how to view another key as an account caller).

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