get_access_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose something useful beyond the name: that both full-access and function-call keys are returned. However, it says nothing about permissions required, pagination, or ordering, so coverage of the behavioral profile is partial.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier about key types is placed immediately after the core action. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the action and the shape of the results at a coarse level. It is adequate to call the tool correctly, though it could note that the keys are returned per account rather than per contract.

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% for the single account_id parameter, which the schema documents as a NEAR account ID. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('List all access keys for an account') and further narrows the scope by naming the two key categories returned. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling read tools, which it doesn't need to since they target different resources.

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?

Usage is reasonably implied by the description — an agent would call this when it needs key information for an account — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the siblings. The parentheses hint at completeness of results but do not guide selection.

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