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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about disabled keys and the distinction between key types, but does not introduce any additional behavioral caveats beyond what annotations convey.

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 well-structured in two short paragraphs, providing necessary context about key types and disabled status without excessive verbosity. It is concise and focused, with no redundant or ambiguous phrasing.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the expected output (keys of both types, disabled indicator) and key selection criteria. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and usage, though it could benefit from specifying the exact output structure.

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 description explains the purpose of both parameters: 'project' implicitly maps to project_id, and project_ids is explicitly described as supporting batched execution. This adds value beyond the raw schema, which only lists types. It covers the parameters sufficiently for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the tool's function: getting all publishable API keys for a project, and distinguishes between legacy anon and modern keys. It uses a specific verb 'Gets' and specifies the resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. It mentions that publishable keys are recommended but does not compare with other tools or specify conditions for selection, such as when to use list vs. get or other project-related tools.

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