or_key_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is minimally transparent, but it does not disclose potential error behaviors (e.g., missing hash, not found) or prerequisites. For a simple get, this is adequate but sparse.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and contains exactly the needed information without waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description and schema together provide enough context. The term 'details' is vague but acceptable for a straightforward get operation. Sibling names help clarify scope.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, including a clear description for 'hash' ('Key hash from or_keys_list'). The tool description simply echoes 'by hash' without adding meaningful new information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of one OpenRouter inference key'), and specifies the method ('by hash'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like or_keys_list (which lists keys) and or_current_key (which gets the current key).

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 implies usage when you have a specific key hash, and the parameter schema notes the hash comes from or_keys_list. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, though the context is clear for a single-key lookup.

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