get_api_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns full details including usage statistics, but does not disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error behavior for unknown key_id, or whether the raw key secret is returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and enumerates the return fields without any filler. Every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter, read-only operation, the description compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned fields (name, status, role, rate limits, usage stats, tenant). The annotations cover the side-effect profile, so an agent has enough to invoke this tool correctly.

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 already documents key_id as 'UUID da API Key' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retorna') and resource ('uma API Key específica'), and lists the exact fields returned (nome, status, role, rate limits, estatísticas de uso, tenant associado). This clearly distinguishes it from list_api_keys by emphasizing specificity.

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 word 'específica' implies this tool is for fetching one key by ID, contrasting with listing, creating, updating, or deleting API keys among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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