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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an output boundary (no private key material, keys plus issuer id), but says nothing about auth/team-membership prerequisites, whether the list can be empty, or pagination. That is a real gap for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, and the negative scope ('does not return private keys') placed immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 tool is simple (one optional param, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers what comes back at a high level (keys + team issuer id), which is exactly what an agent needs without an output schema. Only the return item structure and auth prerequisites are left unspecified.

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%, so the sole parameter (notification_message) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ASC API team keys) plus the extra output (team issuer id), and the clause 'Does not return private keys' implicitly separates it from download_asc_api_key. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 parenthetical '(for EAS / CI)' hints at the intended scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. create_asc_api_key / revoke_asc_api_key / download_asc_api_key). Usage is only implied by the scenario tag.

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