list_entity_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (flat array of fields) and adds significant context about entity_key_index_status reflecting a background index build (Pending → Active, or Failed) and that keys are not usable for keyed-PATCH upserts until Active. This goes beyond a basic listing description.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence efficiently adds valuable behavioral context. No wasted words.

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 the low complexity (one simple parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers the action, return fields, and a key behavioral nuance. It could mention error handling or pagination, but for a list tool of this simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 schema already documents the sole parameter 'entity_logical_name' with a clear description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly states the resource ('alternate keys') and scope ('on a Dataverse table'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_entity_key/delete_entity_key by focusing on listing rather than mutation.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (whenever you need to list alternate keys) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'for creating or deleting keys, use add_entity_key/delete_entity_key'.

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