Get 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. 'Retrieve information' implies a read, but it does not disclose the critical question for an API-key resource — whether the secret key material is returned in full, masked, or omitted — nor any permission requirements or not-found behavior.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a successful response contains and whether sensitive key material is exposed. For a security-sensitive resource, leaving the return semantics entirely unstated is a meaningful gap.

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% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about ID format or origin (e.g., from list-api-keys), which is the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve information about a specific API key'), which cleanly separates it from list-api-keys by implying a single-ID lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'specific API key' plus the required id parameter; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list-api-keys or the other api-key CRUD tools. An agent can infer it, but nothing is spelled out.

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