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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It meaningfully states that plaintext keys are never returned and limits scope to active metadata, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not cover auth or response format, but for a zero-parameter GET list tool this is adequate.

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?

One concise sentence with the endpoint front-loaded, the operation stated, and a critical safety note in parentheses. Every word earns its place and no filler is present.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand what is returned at a high level and that secrets are not exposed. It could be more detailed about metadata fields, but nothing essential is missing for invoking 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is scored 4; there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 ('list'), a specific resource ('active API key metadata'), and the HTTP method. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_key and revoke_key without ambiguity.

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 the tool is for listing key metadata, which contrasts with create_key and revoke_key, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage context is clear but relies on inference from the tool name and siblings.

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