Identify the MagicSword org and key

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what is returned and framing the tool as a key-validity check. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. what an invalid or expired key returns), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, followed by the diagnostic use case. Three short sentences with only slight overlap between the 'troubleshooting access' and 'confirm the key is still valid' framing.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so precisely (org, key id, scopes). Combined with the annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing parameter-level to explain, and the description correctly avoids inventing inputs.

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 (returns) plus the exact resource contents: organization, API key id, and granted scopes. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool, none of which report identity or key metadata.

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?

Gives explicit context for use: 'Call this first when troubleshooting access' and 'before any other tool to confirm the key is still valid.' No when-not guidance or named alternative is needed here, since no sibling overlaps in function.

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