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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the result excludes secrets, includes revoked/paused status, and requires owner-level access. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but those are secondary for this simple read tool.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The most important constraints, the resource being listed and the exclusion of secrets, 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned fields and explicitly notes that secrets are never returned. It also states the owner-only restriction. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter list tool, though it omits any note on result ordering or pagination.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns.

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 identifies the resource clearly (the business's API keys for outside systems) and enumerates the returned fields: name, scopes, last used, revoked/paused. It also adds a crucial scope note that secrets are never included. It does not explicitly state the verb 'list' or contrast itself with siblings such as revoke_api_key, keeping it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Owner only' gives an important authorization prerequisite for calling the tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as revoke_api_key or list_connected_apps. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully directed.

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