listSubAPIKeysV5

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

Annotations only mark read-only and open-world; the description goes much further by disclosing that secrets are never returned, system API keys are auto-filtered, pagination is cursor-based with Base64, and expiration statuses are mapped to four numeric categories. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond annotations.

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?

Text is front-loaded and organized with clear headers and bullets, making key constraints easy to scan. There is some repetition ('Returns API keys...' restates the first sentence; filtered keys are mentioned twice), so it could be tightened without loss.

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 read-only paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, pagination mechanics, response fields, filtered keys, and expiration semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains cursor as Base64-encoded, states the default page size of 20, and implies subuid as the target sub-account. It never explicitly names all three parameters, so it is not a perfect substitution, but coverage is strong.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Query all API keys of a sub-account with pagination support', which distinguishes it from the many sibling member/API-key tools. It also names the actor ('master account') and scope ('specified sub-account'), so an agent can select it without parsing 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 states when to use the endpoint: only a master account with appropriate permissions querying its own sub-account, and lists concrete use cases such as auditing and expiration monitoring. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full 5.

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