list_api_keys

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it scopes to account-level keys, states the key requires an API key (auth context), and explicitly warns that secret values are never returned and that lost keys must be rotated rather than recovered—a genuinely useful safety/security caveat.

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 compact three-sentence block with clear front-loading: the first sentence establishes the verb and resource, the second adds the audit use-case and the key caveat about secrets, and the third clarifies read-only and auth context. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence could arguably be tightened without losing the important caveat.

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?

Given 0 params, a minimal schema, no output schema, and rich annotations covering safety, the description is fully adequate. It supplies security context (treat as sensitive), call-scope (account), and auth requirement (API key) that the schema and annotations do not. There's nothing missing for an agent to invoke and interpret this 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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). With no params, the baseline is 4, and the description further clarifies the scope ('on the account') and the metadata-only nature of the result, adding meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists API keys with scope and last-used metadata—a specific verb plus resource plus what's returned. The sibling space is large but all other tools are for email/campaign/contact/automation/domain operations, making this tool clearly distinct as the API-key listing operation.

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 explicitly frames when to use it—to audit access, spot unused/over-scoped/forgotten keys—and what it does not do (not returned secrets, no creation/revocation/rotation). It clearly distinguishes metadata listing from code actions and states the sensitive-security context.

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