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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important behavioral facts: which fields come back and that key material is never returned, which is a genuine security-relevant guarantee. It stops short of stating permissions required, pagination behavior, or explicitly that the operation is read-only, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the most decision-relevant fact. Every word earns its place, including the terse 'Never the keys' caveat.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both the field-level return shape and the security boundary, which is what an agent most needs. Minor omissions like pagination and permission requirements are acceptable at this complexity.

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 schema already explains both the optional organisation slug and the include_revoked default in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists an organisation's API keys') and enumerates the returned fields (name, access, last four characters, dates). The closing 'Never the keys' pins down exactly what this tool is not, so an agent can distinguish it from any secret-retrieval expectation without opening the 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the tool's role is implied by the read-only listing framing and the 'Never the keys' note, which signals it is safe for inspecting key metadata without exposing secrets. No sibling covers API keys, so the absence of routing guidance is a smaller gap than it would otherwise be.

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