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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the exact return shape ({ id, provider, name }) and a security-relevant guarantee that the secret is never returned, which prevents an agent from attempting to fetch credentials. It is silent on pagination and permission requirements, but 'List' plus the stated scope makes the read-only nature clear.

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?

Two tight sentences: identity and return shape first, the security guarantee second, the follow-up usage last. No filler, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return field list and the safety note, which is most of what an agent needs to call it and consume the result. The only real gap is the missing link to the sibling list_ai_providers and to how workspaceId is obtained.

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 0% for the single workspaceId parameter, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'in this workspace' implies that workspaceId scopes the result, but it never states the format or where to obtain the id, leaving the parameter only partially explained.

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 ('List the AI keys saved in this workspace') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_ai_providers, which is the only plausible confusion point.

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 closing instruction 'Pass id to the block's AI API key field' tells the agent what to do with the result, which is genuine next-step guidance. However, there is no statement about when to choose this tool over list_ai_providers or any prerequisite/permission context, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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