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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only metadata is returned and secrets are never included, which is real value about the response content, but it says nothing about required auth/permissions, pagination, or ordering for a sensitive credential-adjacent endpoint.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the important caveat about secrets placed immediately after where it can't be missed. No filler.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is only partly sufficient. The secrets caveat is the most valuable piece of context and is present, but auth requirements and what fields the metadata actually contains are absent.

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 app_id parameter, so the schema adds nothing. The phrase "for a specific app" maps the parameter to its meaning, but no format, source of the ID, or examples are given, leaving the description to do more than it does.

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 (List) and resource (API keys) scoped to "a specific app", and the parenthetical clarifies exactly what kind of data comes back. It does not name or distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, builder_apps_list, so the reader must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 statement of when to call this versus builder_apps_list or any related builder tool, and no prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned. The reader gets a clear purpose but no routing guidance.

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