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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful, non-obvious behavioral fact - 'Secrets are never shown' - that tells the agent returned values are redacted, though it says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape.

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 with no filler, and the primary listing behavior is front-loaded. The brevity is appropriate in style, though it edges toward under-specification rather than economy.

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 six-parameter tool with a nested body object, a low-coverage schema, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine from the description how to page results, filter by search, or what 'body' is for when calling get.

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 only 17% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It never explains id, limit, offset, search, or the opaque nested 'body' object, leaving most of the call surface undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource ('List the organization's API keys, or get one') and covers both modes of the tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the edit_api_keys sibling, so an agent must infer that writes live elsewhere.

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?

'List ... or get one' hints at two usage modes, but there is no explicit mapping to the action enum or a statement of when to prefer list vs get. There is also no exclusion guidance versus edit_api_keys, which an agent could plausibly confuse with key retrieval.

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