alternative_distribution_keys__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the HTTP method but no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits). It does not contradict annotations, but adds no value beyond them.

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 sentence plus an endpoint annotation. Every word is necessary, and the primary action ('List') is front-loaded. There is no superfluous content.

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 no output schema, the description lacks information about the response format or structure. While the parameter descriptions cover pagination, the description itself does not confirm that the tool returns a list of keys or that results are paginated. For a simple list endpoint, this is adequate but not complete.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already defines their semantics. The description does not add any meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('alternative distribution keys'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. The appended HTTP endpoint '[GET /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys]' adds specificity. Among sibling tools, the name and description distinctly separate it from create, delete, and get variants.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to filter by exists_app, or how it differs from other list tools). There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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