alternative_distribution_keys__list

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

The annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the endpoint and a parameter hint, and it does not contradict the 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?

The description is two concise sentences plus the endpoint, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps the additional hint relevant.

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 listing operation with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the resource type, but it omits any mention of pagination behavior or response structure. The schema covers parameters, but a bit more context on the returned collection would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value for exists_app, explaining its intended use for existence checks, which goes beyond the schema description.

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 identifies the tool as listing public keys for EU alternative distribution, with a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint is provided. It distinguishes the list operation from sibling get/create/delete tools.

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?

It gives one concrete usage hint for the exists_app parameter ('Use exists[app] to check whether an app has one at all'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this list tool versus the sibling get/create/delete operations.

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