pp_request_free_key

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that the key is never returned, that the response is deliberately identical regardless of prior key existence (anti-enumeration), the 5/hr/IP cap, and the real-world email side effect. Rich, non-obvious disclosure.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose front-loaded and the safety caveat last. No filler.

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 and full param coverage, the description supplies everything else needed: return behavior (key absent, uniform response), rate limits, and the human-impact caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('request a free API key') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (a link is emailed, not the key). It is trivially distinguishable from all siblings, which are read-only deal/product lookup tools.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Only call it when the user has explicitly asked for it in this conversation,' plus context about the rate cap and the real-world side effect. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs for a side-effecting tool.

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