brc_get_company_api_key_status

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Returns connection status only — never the key' and 'The assistant must not repeat keys from chat history.' This provides security-relevant context and clarifies the tool's limitations. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden effectively.

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, each serving a purpose: when to use, what it returns, and a behavioral constraint. It is front-loaded with usage guidance and contains no unnecessary words. 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, behavioral constraints, and parameter usage. It could mention possible status values for completeness, but given the simplicity and clear guidance, it is largely sufficient. Minor gap in return value specifics.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter 'companyName' with complete description (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Use when the user asks for an API key, secret, or what key was used.' It specifies the verb (use) and resource (API key status), and distinguishes from siblings by noting that it only returns connection status, not the key itself. This differentiates it from sibling tools like clear operations.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool ('when the user asks for an API key, secret, or what key was used') and what not to do ('must not repeat keys from chat history'). While it doesn't mention alternatives, the sibling context clearly shows other tools for different purposes, and the guidance is sufficient.

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