list_api_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is freed from carrying the safety profile. It still adds value the annotations don't: revoked keys are included in results, pagination is cursor-based and iterative, and a specific OAuth-style scope is required. Return shape/ordering is left unspecified, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Three short lines, no filler; the resource identity comes first, then the mechanics an agent actually needs mid-call (pagination), then the precondition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-param, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers inclusion scope, pagination loop, and auth scope — enough to call it correctly and interpret results. What a key record contains (fields, whether secrets are masked) is not described, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, with both `limit` (bounds and default) and `cursor` fully documented in-schema. The description's cursor sentence largely restates the schema wording, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List API keys') and adds a scope qualifier ('including revoked') that meaningfully sharpens what will come back. Against siblings create_api_key, rotate_api_key, and revoke_api_key, the read-only listing intent is unambiguous from the lead verb alone.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: how to paginate ('pass `cursor` = `next_cursor` from the previous result') and the prerequisite scope `api_keys:read`. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling, but the listing-versus-mutating split is self-evident from the sibling names.

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