check_dart_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The phrase 'without exposing it' adds a meaningful safety trait — the agent knows the key will not be leaked. However, it does not disclose what happens when the key is missing (error, boolean flag, log message), which is relevant for a health-check tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, and the safety guarantee are all packed efficiently.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter check with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and a key safety constraint. The only notable omission is guidance on when to run this check relative to sibling tools, which does not heavily degrade completeness given the tool's trivial complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether the DART API key was loaded'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a configuration/readiness verification. It is distinguishable from siblings like dart_test_connection since it targets key loading rather than connectivity, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this check versus the sibling dart_test_connection or other test utilities. The intended invocation context (e.g., before financial-data calls, during setup) is left entirely to the agent to infer.

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