Get API key inference usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further: it spells out the authorization scope (same key only), a data-redaction guarantee (internal provider model names are never returned), and an explicit no-side-effect commitment (does not change limits, notifications, or billing). Those authorization and redaction details are not recoverable from the annotations.

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 return-value inventory is front-loaded and dense but every clause carries information; the two trailing sentences are short and each adds a distinct guarantee (scope, read-only). Minor redundancy between 'read-only' in the last sentence and the enumerated non-effects keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden and does so by enumerating the returned data (spend, limits, remaining, per-model request/token totals, notification preferences) plus the scope and redaction rules. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this single-parameter read tool is missing.

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%: the single id parameter already documents its source (list_api_keys), its meaning (the calling key's own ID), and its bounds. The description only reinforces the same-key constraint rather than adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (paid inference usage for an API key) and enumerates the exact returned dimensions: committed/reserved spend for UTC day and month, request and token totals per model profile, spend limits, remaining spend, notification preferences. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_api_key, get_api_key_activity, and get_usage_statements, which cover identity, activity log, and account-level statements respectively.

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 usage boundary — API-key callers may only inspect the key that authenticated the MCP connection — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it never routes the agent to alternatives (get_api_key_activity for per-request history, get_usage_statements for broader billing) or states prerequisites, so selection guidance is only implied.

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