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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts on top — that secrets are never returned, results are ordered newest first, and pages are 100 at a time. It omits auth/permission requirements and edge cases such as what happens with revoked 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the pagination mechanics. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, fully documented 4-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, secret exclusion, ordering, and paging — enough to invoke correctly. It could do slightly more by naming the shape of the returned key records or clarifying sibling boundaries.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, user_id, and purpose, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces cursor round-tripping ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') and the meaning of user_id, but adds no format or boundary detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every live API key in the workspace') plus scope ('in the workspace', 'optionally for one person') and ordering ('newest first'). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like desk_list_api_key_people or desk_list_keys_issued_by, which an agent could plausibly confuse with 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?

Pagination guidance ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor') and the optional per-person filter imply when to use the parameters, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over desk_list_api_key_people or desk_list_keys_issued_by, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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