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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the response is metadata only, i.e. secret key material is not returned — but it says nothing about permissions required, whether the result is paginated or complete, or what 'metadata' includes.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler, and the key qualifier ('metadata only') is placed where it will be read. It is arguably too terse to be well-formed prose, but it is not padded or buried.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential safety-relevant fact (no secret material returned). It stops short of describing what the list contains, ordering, or any limits, leaving the agent to discover the return shape empirically.

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 schema takes no parameters and has 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 names the resource (API keys) and scopes it to 'this workspace', so an agent can tell it apart from create_api_key and revoke_api_key, which mutate the same resource. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the name and the read-only framing make the purpose unambiguous.

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 create_api_key or revoke_api_key, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the phrase 'metadata only', which hints at a read-side inspection use case but is never framed as usage advice.

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