get_api_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path, disclosing nothing about auth/permission requirements, behavior on an invalid or foreign key ID, or sensitive-data characteristics of the returned key material.

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 filler. It is efficiently sized for a trivial getter, though the parenthetical endpoint reference is of marginal value to an agent.

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 simple read-only getter with a fully documented single parameter and annotations covering safety, the minimum is met. However, with no output schema, the description could have said what the response contains (key token, permissions, creation date) and it does not.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Key ID from list_api_keys'), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource ('a specific API key') and implies a retrieve verb via 'Details for', plus the underlying endpoint (api_keys/view). It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it never names the sibling it differs from (list_api_keys, get_api_key_history) to help an agent disambiguate.

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: fetch details for one key given an ID. The schema's 'Key ID from list_api_keys' hints at the workflow (list first, then get), but the description itself gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives versus get_api_key_history/list_api_keys.

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