list_api_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the auditing intent and enumerates returned fields, but since an output schema exists that enumeration is largely duplicative rather than new behavioral context.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, disambiguation, return shape in that order. The final sentence listing return fields is slightly redundant against the existing output schema, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry safety. What remains is adequately covered for a simple zero-required-parameter list tool; only the absence of any filter/pagination hint keeps it from being complete.

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 page_size, current_page, and workspace_id are already documented in the schema. The description never mentions filtering or paging, so baseline 3 applies — it neither compensates for nor undercuts the schema.

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 ("List Portkey API keys") and immediately bounds the purpose to auditing access, scopes, defaults, limits, and expiration. It also names the sibling it is not (list_virtual_keys), so an agent can disambiguate without opening either 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 routes the agent: "Use this for API keys only; use list_virtual_keys for provider keys." That is a clear selection condition against the most confusable sibling, though it says nothing about when to prefer this over get_api_key or how paging should be driven.

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