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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds critical security behavior: raw keys are hashed at rest and never returned, not even the caller's own key. It also clarifies the administrative boundary that this connection can list and revoke but not create keys.

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?

Three focused sentences, no fluff or repetition. The purpose is stated first, followed by the security disclosure and the creation-context constraint; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 no-input tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description fully covers the essential semantics: scope, returned fields, security behavior, and creation limitations. No additional information is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the list returns rather than on any inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list all API keys ever issued for the workspace, and names the returned fields (prefix, last use, revoked status). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from key minting, which is not possible through this tool.

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 description makes clear this is the read-only listing operation and that key creation happens only on the dashboard, not here. It implies revocation is available through the same connection, though it does not explicitly name the revoke_api_key sibling as the alternative.

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