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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only key metadata is returned, not secret values, and that authentication is required. It could also mention read-only status or error behavior, but the listed details are meaningful and non-obvious.

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 with the core purpose, followed by a clearly labeled access note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists, what it does not return, and how to authenticate. It does not enumerate exact metadata fields, but this is a minor gap given the simple invocation requirements.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the input surface. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed; the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('List all API keys') and a specific scope ('for the authenticated account'). It also clarifies that it returns metadata and not secret values, distinguishing it from related tools like get_self_api_key or 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 context on when to use the tool and explicitly explains the prerequisite Proof account and authentication flow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the access guidance is actionable and sufficient for correct usage.

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