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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds substantive behavior: keys are masked to first/last three characters and full values are never returned. That is exactly the kind of constraint that prevents an agent from calling this tool expecting exportable credentials.

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 is front-loaded and the masking warning follows immediately. The second sentence is long and carries a parenthetical cross-reference, but every clause (masking rule, example, no full keys, alternative path) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained; the description instead covers the non-obvious part an agent cannot get from the schema — that returned keys are masked and where to obtain full values. Adequate for a zero-required-parameter read tool.

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% and the single optional workspace_id is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantics about workspace scoping or what 'all keys' means per workspace.

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 ('Retrieve all API keys for the account') and immediately scopes the result set. An agent can distinguish it from delete_api_key or get_api_key_page_link without opening any 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?

Explicitly says when this tool is insufficient ('full key values are never exposed by this tool') and routes the agent to the correct alternative tools (get_api_key_page_link / get_api_key_refresh_link) plus the manual path. Nothing is left to inference.

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