API keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement ("an API key whose owner is an organization admin"), the redaction of key material, the sort order, and the read-only nature ("Reads only"). Pagination and rate limits are unmentioned, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying scope, ordering, redaction, auth, and read-only status with no filler. Every clause 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 zero-param listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return shape (redacted material, ordering, join key to usage) and safety (read-only) sufficiently. Minor gaps like pagination remain but are not critical.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the parameter baseline is 4. There is no parameter information the description could add or omit.

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 names a specific resource ("The API keys in your organization") and adds scope and ordering ("newest first"), so an agent knows this is a listing of org API keys. It differentiates itself from the usage report by explaining the id/prefix cross-reference, but the phrase is noun-led and doesn't sharply distinguish from sibling ideogram_api.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the admin-owner prerequisite and the cross-reference to the usage report hint at when this tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to an alternative sibling.

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