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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the output fields (token name, masked key, creation date, last used, expiration status) and notes that expired tokens are marked. This goes beyond a simple listing statement, though it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and then enumerate the returned fields. 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 parameterless list tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what tokens are listed and what information is shown. However, it omits potential pagination or sorting behavior, which could be relevant for a list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none exist, and the schema coverage is 100% with an empty object.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('API tokens') with scope ('for your account'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_token and revoke_token, which perform different actions.

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 implies this is for viewing all tokens in the account, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. Since the sibling tools are mostly unrelated (create/revoke), context is clear enough.

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