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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that key values are never returned (only prefix and last four) and that the admin scope is required — exactly the kind of context an agent can't infer from annotations.

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 tight sentences: the returned fields come first, then the security caveat and auth requirement. No filler, nothing repeated from the title.

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 compensates by naming the fields returned (kind, environment, prefix, last four, revocation state) and clarifying that values are masked. Combined with the auth requirement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `app` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the orgSlug/appSlug alternative. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list an application's ingest keys) and enumerates the returned attributes, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_api_key via the read-only framing, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

States the admin-scope precondition, which is genuinely useful gating information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as create_api_key or execute_api_operation, leaving the routing to inference.

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