Request free API key

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

Annotations already assert non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior with openWorldHint. The description adds concrete context: it emails a free API-key link and is rate limited to five requests per hour per IP. This rate-limit disclosure and delivery mechanism go beyond the structured annotations, enhancing transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and then add the rate-limit constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague 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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the action, delivery mechanism, and a key constraint (rate limit), which is adequate for a request tool with no output schema. However, it omits any mention of project_name/site_url semantics or what the user should expect after requesting, leaving minor gaps.

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 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies email's role via 'email a free API-key link,' but project_name and site_url are completely unexplained. Two of three parameters therefore remain semantically ambiguous.

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 ('Ask') and resource ('PriceProfeet to email a free API-key link'), making it clear this is a request action. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are read-oriented (get, list, search, compare), so there is no ambiguity about its unique 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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need a free API key. Since the sibling tools are all read operations, there is no alternative that performs a similar action, so context is sufficient. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or contrast with alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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