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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that secrets are never returned. This reassures the agent that the operation is safe and does not expose sensitive key material. The HTTP endpoint reference adds minor extra transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the core purpose and scope, and includes the safety-relevant metadata-only note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple list operation with three optional pagination/scope parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, scope, and secrecy guarantee. It does not describe the exact response shape, but 'metadata only' plus the schema's pagination fields provide sufficient context for calling the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter already documented in the schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific action ('List API keys') and resource scope ('organization/workspace'), and adds a key distinguisher: metadata only, secrets never returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_api_key (single key) and list_virtual_keys (virtual keys).

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 gives useful context about scope ('organization/workspace') and the metadata-only nature, so an agent can infer when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer an alternative such as get_api_key or list_virtual_keys, leaving some selection logic to inference.

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