Get TomTom API Key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'retrieve' is consistent with those. It adds the 'internal' access context but does not disclose operational details such as authentication requirements or secret-handling expectations.

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?

One concise sentence names the caller, action, and resource with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent internal lookup, the description covers the essential context. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and no mention of failure behavior if the key is missing or how the key should be handled in responses.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 names a specific verb ('retrieve'), a specific resource ('TomTom API key'), and an intended caller ('apps'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like tomtom-get-app-config and tomtom-get-viz-data.

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 phrase 'Internal tool for apps' provides clear context that this is a back-end credential lookup for applications rather than a general-purpose utility. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to serve this same key-retrieval role.

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