get_authkey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the HTTP method and 'WhiteLabel' context, but does not disclose expected response format, authentication requirements, or any conditional behavior. It goes slightly beyond annotations but does not provide substantial behavioral details.

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 a single concise fragment with no redundant words. The 'WhiteLabel (Python SDK parity)' parenthetical is brief but adds useful context about the intended usage. It is appropriately sized, though it omits some semantic clarity that a full sentence might provide.

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 simple parameter set and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate but sparse. It does not explain what an authkey is, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites. A more complete description would mention that this retrieves the current authkey and perhaps note that it is read-only.

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 only parameter dry_run is fully described in the input schema with a Russian-language explanation, covering 100% of schema descriptions. The tool description does not mention parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the HTTP method and resource path (GET /api/v2/authkey), which clarifies it retrieves an authkey. The 'WhiteLabel (Python SDK parity)' hint adds context, but it does not explicitly state what the authkey is or what the response contains. It is distinguishable from sibling create_authkey due to the GET verb and resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_authkey or get_overview. The 'WhiteLabel' and 'Python SDK parity' hints imply a specific audience but do not offer clear selection criteria or exclusions. The description fails to help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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