signup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the raw key is returned only once, that verification via email is required for free monthly allowance and lost-key recovery, and that unverified keys do not receive the free tier. It also describes the return keys, providing useful behavioral context beyond a basic creation action.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence carries important information (return-once behavior, verification requirement, free tier condition) without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (signup with verification, free tier, lost-key recovery) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the critical behaviors and return values. It does not mention error cases like duplicate email, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand the signup flow.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'email: The user's email address', which adds little beyond the schema's title 'Email'. No format, constraints, or behavioral implications of the email are explained, despite the description later referencing email verification.

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 opens with 'Create an Enrichr API key' – a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rotate_api_key, which handles key rotation rather than initial creation. The subsequent details about verification and return keys reinforce the purpose.

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 implies usage for signing up and obtaining a new API key, and explains the verification step and free tier. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like rotate_api_key or account_usage, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is sufficient but not explicit about alternatives.

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