listApiKeys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Read-only', specifies 'GET /paygate/api-keys', and reveals the rate limit (100 requests per 1m). This adds important safety and operational context beyond a bare 'List API keys'. It does not disclose return format or pagination, but for a simple list operation this is reasonable.

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 a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by parenthetical operational details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: method, path, and rate limit. However, it lacks any differentiation from the closely named sibling 'getApiKeys', and does not describe the return shape or possible pagination. The absence of an output schema makes those details more important for an agent to select the tool confidently.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. The phrase 'for the tenant' clarifies the scope of the operation, which is a small contextual bonus.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'API keys', and the scope 'for the tenant'. It also gives the HTTP method and path, making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'getApiKeys', which appears to cover the same resource.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the action, and neither mentions 'getApiKeys' nor any condition that would select one over the other. An agent must guess which API-key tool fits a given request.

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