Verify the selected Space key

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the response contains (Space id, account email) and bounding what verification proves — private metadata, not ownership. It stops short of describing auth requirements or failure behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences that lead with the action and follow with response/scope caveats. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the second sentence's phrasing is dense and slightly cryptic.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields. But for a verification tool it omits the key questions — what result indicates a valid vs invalid key, and whether errors are surfaced — leaving the definition only adequately complete.

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 the single optional 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 title 'Verify the selected Space key' and the phrase 'Explicit native key verification' convey the resource (a Space API key) and action (verification), and the description notes the response returns Space id and account email. However, the wording is elliptic ('native', 'explicit') and never plainly states it checks whether the configured key is valid, so an agent must infer the core purpose.

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 on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or trigger context. The only scoping is a negative: 'not ownership or all-action proof,' which limits expectations but does not tell the agent when verification is warranted.

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