Request an API key (human-gated)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and exceeds it: it reveals the async pending-approval flow, the out-of-band CLI dependency, the deliberately fake sk-ant-demo-... key format, the dedup behavior for already-approved scopes, and the hidden dual-mode status: prefix behavior. This is far more than the bare schema conveys.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying a distinct non-redundant fact: purpose, the no-mint caveat, the fake key format, dedup behavior, and the status-check mode. The most critical warning is front-loaded in the second sentence, and no sentence repeats schema content or adds 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the workflow is thoroughly covered: what it does, what it does not do, approval mechanics, key format, dedup, and status checking. The one notable gap is the return value: the description references request ids (apprq_...) but never states what a successful call returns, which an agent needs to chain the status-check call.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already fully documents both parameters, including the status:<request_id> pattern for scope and the approver-facing purpose of justification. The description adds only marginal parameter-level meaning (that scope is the dedup identity), which is not enough to push above baseline.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Request an API key for a given scope'), and the title adds the 'human-gated' qualifier. The 'This does NOT mint a key' clause immediately disambiguates it from a key-generation operation, and the workflow described (approval requests vs. the read-only status/usage siblings) makes it easy to tell apart from get_limit_status and get_usage_summary.

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 gives clear operational context for when to use the tool: to file a pending approval request, with explicit notes on the out-of-band human approval via the companion CLI, dedup on repeated scopes, and a status-check mode. However, it never explicitly names the sibling tools or states when NOT to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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