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

The description adds substantial value beyond the annotations by disclosing authorization scope, returned fields, the exclusion of secrets, and behavior for departed users' keys. It also states authentication requirements, which is useful behavioral context for a read-only listing operation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, packing the resource, return fields, visibility rules, and authentication requirement into a few dense clauses without unnecessary wording. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, who can see what, and the authentication requirement. The main gap is the unexplained include_revoked parameter, and pagination or ordering behavior is not addressed.

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 only parameter, include_revoked, is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides 0% description coverage. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema documentation by explaining whether revoked keys are included by default or what the flag changes.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the organization's API keys and specifies the returned fields (prefix, name, creator, last use) while explicitly noting the secret is never returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_api_key and revoke_api_key.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance by explaining visibility rules: members see only keys they created, while admins and owners see all keys, including those from departed users. It also states that authentication via API key or connected account is required, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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