validate_api_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the primary behavior (validation) and the return content (creation/expiration dates). It does not explicitly mention whether the operation is read-only or if it can fail, but the nature of validation and the absence of side effects are strongly implied. A small gap exists regarding error behavior, but overall the description is transparent.

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 two concise sentences in French. It conveys the core purpose, usage scenario, and return information with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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?

The description tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It does not specify the exact output format or error handling, but these are not essential for the agent to decide to invoke it. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete for practical use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema coverage is effectively 100% since no parameters exist. The description correctly does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters, so it fully satisfies this dimension.

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 clearly states the tool verifies an API key and returns its creation and expiration dates. It explicitly mentions when to use it (diagnosing authentication issues or confirming key activity), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_accounts or get_user.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Utilise ce tool si l'utilisateur veut diagnostiquer un problème d'authentification ou confirmer que sa clef est active.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool, leaving no ambiguity about its applicability.

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