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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that revoked keys are included, that raw key values are never included (only shown once at creation), and that Owner_key is required. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core scope is front-loaded, the complement relationship is stated, and the key behavioral caveat (raw keys never included) is included. Every sentence 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?

The description is complete for a list tool: it states scope, the complement relationship, the auth requirement, and the key exclusion behavior. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Minor gaps like pagination/ordering are not critical for a list 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds the Owner_key requirement context and clarifies the api_key's role, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every sub-key ever issued under a workspace'), and explicitly includes revoked ones. It also names the sibling tool it complements (aanet_get_activity), distinguishing it from the per-event log. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 clear context: it is the inventory view that complements aanet_get_activity's per-event log, and it notes the Owner_key requirement. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for filtering, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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