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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior: which fields come back and the security guarantee that plaintext key material is never returned. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or empty-list behavior, so it adds value but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical field list is dense rather than verbose. The only waste is the "Step 11: Manage API keys" onboarding label, which is filler for an agent trying to choose a tool.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the read-only/idempotent annotations cover the rest of the contract. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter list tool, with only pagination or result-size expectations missing.

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 single businessId parameter already documents its default-from-auth-header behavior, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about businessId, which is acceptable given the baseline, but it misses the chance to note that the parameter is optional and scopes cross-business listing.

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 the specific verb "List" with the specific resource "API keys" and even enumerates the fields returned (prefix, scope, last use, revoked status). This clearly separates it from ringkit_create_api_key and ringkit_revoke_api_key. The leading "Step 11: Manage API keys" framing is slightly at odds with the read-only nature of the operation, since managing is split across siblings, but the second sentence resolves it.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading the key inventory. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and the description never points at the obvious alternatives (ringkit_create_api_key for minting, ringkit_revoke_api_key for revocation), even though they sit in the same family and would benefit from routing guidance.

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