list_beacon_signing_keys

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 implies a read-only operation via 'List' and scopes to the account, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite the schema's limit/offset params), response format, or any caveats. The word 'all' could be misleading given the default limit of 100, but it's not an explicit contradiction.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps: no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at the response structure. It also lacks usage guidance and mention of pagination. However, given the low complexity and the schema covering parameters, it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 two parameters (limit, offset), so the schema already provides full parameter documentation. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('beacon signing keys') with a clear scope ('in your AdButler account'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_beacon_signing_key or validate_beacon_signing_key by being the list operation for this 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_beacon_signing_key for a single key, or validate_beacon_signing_key for validation). It doesn't mention exclusions or compare to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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