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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond a generic 'List access keys' by stating the operation is metadata-only and that key material is never returned again. This is a genuinely useful safety-relevant disclosure. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a simple list operation the key behavior is covered.

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 sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the most important caveat about key material without any filler. Every word 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?

For a list tool with no required parameters prelimit and a fully documented optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. The metadata-only warning compensates for the lack of an output schema, and the sibling tool names fill in the alternatives.

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 owner_key parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the account scoping, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), names the resource ('access keys'), and clarifies the scope ('for your account'). It also adds the crucial qualifier that only metadata is returned, which clearly distinguishes it from create_access_key, revoke_access_key, and update_access_key.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you need to list access keys for the current account. It does not explicitly name exclude create/revoke/update, but the verb and resource make the appropriate use fairly obvious. Lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance, so not a 5.

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