signup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that the API key is shown only once and that the server must be restarted with FIRSTHAND_API_KEY. It does not cover failure modes or response details, but the most important operational quirk is clearly communicated.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and outcome, then adds necessary operational guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter setup tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the trigger condition, and the critical one-time-key warning. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format, but the operational guidance is strong enough to make the tool usable.

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%, with both email and org_name already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('FirstHandAPI buyer account') and states concrete outcomes (API key plus $2.50 in credits). This makes the tool's function unmistakable even without sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the server is running without FIRSTHAND_API_KEY.' It also provides clear follow-up steps (store the key, restart the MCP server, set the env var) and explains the purpose ('unlock the job tools').

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