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 genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: publishable key values are returned but secret key values are never exposed, which is a critical disclosure for an agent reasoning about output contents.

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, zero filler; the returned-field list comes first and the security caveat second, which is the right priority order.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does list the five fields returned plus the value-exposure rule. It stops short of noting ordering, pagination, or what an empty workspace looks like, but it is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 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 the resource (workspace map keys) and enumerates exactly which fields come back (kind, name, allowed origins, status, last use), which distinguishes it clearly from create_key, revoke_key and set_key_origins. The verb 'list' is only implied by the name/title, not stated in the sentence itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the sibling set (create_key, revoke_key, set_key_origins) makes the inventory role obvious, but the description never says when to call this rather than another tool or what preconditions (workspace scope, permissions) apply.

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