Get API key activity

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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: sensitive fields (key values, headers, query strings, path values, bodies) are never returned, audit writes are rate-capped per key per minute, retained detail has a per-key row ceiling, and the totals are explicitly not a billing ledger. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before invoking.

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 definition is front-loaded with what is returned, then layers constraints and caveats in a logical order, and every sentence carries distinct information about scope, privacy, or retention. The opening sentence is a fairly dense field list, but nothing is redundant or padding.

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 must describe the return payload — and it does (route patterns, statuses, source addresses, totals, daily history) along with retention limits and write caps. For a simple two-parameter read tool, an agent has everything required 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and limit, with defaults and bounds) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get recorded request activity for this API key) and enumerates the concrete contents returned: matched route patterns and statuses, resolved vs caller-claimed source addresses, endpoint/source totals, and daily history. That level of specificity distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_key (key metadata) and get_api_key_inference_usage (inference usage) without opening their schemas.

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?

It states a real precondition — API-key callers can only inspect the key that authenticated the MCP connection — which tells the agent whether the call is even permitted. However, it never routes the agent between this tool and adjacent options such as get_api_key or get_api_key_inference_usage, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only partially covered.

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