get_developer_key_usage

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what metadata is returned (last used, scopes, active status), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It provides all necessary information without extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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 description is fairly complete for a simple read tool. It mentions the return fields, though no output schema is provided. It lacks details on error cases or pagination, but given the simplicity, it covers the essential context. Slightly incomplete regarding full response structure.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter (key_id), the description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the parameter name implies. The parameter is self-explanatory as a developer key ID, but the description could have specified expected format or source. Baseline is 4 due to zero parameters requiring schema coverage, but the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'developer key', and specifically lists the metadata fields returned (last used, scopes, active status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_developer_keys (which lists all keys) and create/revoke/rotate (which are mutations).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear that it returns metadata for a specific key, there is no mention of when list_developer_keys or other key tools might be more appropriate. The usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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