get_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the one-time secret return ('The secret is returned once'), how to transmit it (Authorization: Bearer or api_key), and a usage-rate caution. It does not state whether a key never expires, whether repeated calls invalidate prior keys, or whether auth is required to mint.

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 short sentences with no filler; purpose and the one-time-secret constraint are front-loaded, and each clause adds operational value (storage, header format, call-frequency warning).

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, the description must cover the return value and it does ('The secret is returned once'), which is the critical unknown for a key-minting tool. Minor gaps remain around key lifetime/expiry and what happens to previously issued keys, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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% and the single optional `label` parameter is fully documented (80-character limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the label parameter itself, and the parameter is optional, so nothing here is required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 and resource ('Mint a ... SpendGate API key') and resolves the mismatch between the generic name get_api_key and the actual minting behavior. It also names score_spend as the downstream consumer, so an agent can place it among its siblings without opening a schema.

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 when-not ('Do not call this on every turn') and implies the consumption workflow via score_spend. It stops short of stating when it should be called (initial setup vs. re-mint after a lost key), so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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