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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description still adds behavior the annotations do not cover: key values and client secrets are never returned, and the status/type filters do not apply to client-credential pairs. The note that the two lists page separately is a real operational constraint that would otherwise trip up a caller.

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?

Purpose and the key safety constraint are front-loaded, and the routing and pagination notes earn their place. The two sentences enumerating per-key and per-pair return fields are largely redundant given that an output schema exists, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, everything an agent needs is present: the prerequisite source for the required ID, the default filter behavior, the scope caveat for filters, and the split pagination model. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 only 29%, so the description has to carry the load, and it does: it explains that organizationId comes from GetMyIdentity, names the status values and their default (ACTIVE), names the type values, and maps first/after to keys and pairsFirst/pairsAfter to pairs. That covers all seven parameters in a way the raw schema does not.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'List the API keys and client-credential pairs of an organization.' It also scopes the resource to two distinct object types, so the agent can separate it from CreateApiKey, RenameApiKey, and DeleteApiKey in the sibling list without reading a schema.

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 explicit routing: pass a key's ID to RenameApiKey or DeleteApiKey, and it explicitly excludes pairs from that path (manage them in GraphOS Studio or with `rover api-key`). It also names the prerequisite source for organizationId (GetMyIdentity) and states the default status filter, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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