Scrapfly Account API Key

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), which the description doesn't repeat. It adds value by specifying the exact resource returned ('API key'), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements, though annotations cover the core safety profile adequately.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 (simple retrieval), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the exact resource ('API key'), but could improve by clarifying usage context relative to siblings, though annotations reduce the burden.

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 has 100% description coverage, documenting the single 'dummy' parameter as for LangChain compatibility. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, which is acceptable since the schema fully handles it. With 0 required parameters, the baseline is high, and the description focuses on the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Users' ScrapFly API key'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'info_account', which might provide broader account information, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving API keys for authentication purposes or contrast it with siblings such as 'info_account' that might include the API key among other details, leaving the agent without usage context.

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