licensing_list_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 important behavioral traits including that keys are returned with masked values (first and last 8 characters), includes both active and revoked keys, and that the operation is restricted to the organization owner. This is a safe read-like listing operation with meaningful disclosure of security/privacy behavior.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the return format/masking behavior, and the access restriction. No fluff, no redundancy, tightly front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

This is a simple 0-parameter listing tool with no output schema. The description thoroughly explains what keys are returned (all, active and revoked), how values appear (masked), why they're useful (lastValidatedAt for verifying running instances), and who can call it (organization owner). For a listing tool this is complete; no output schema exists but the return behavior is well described for the agent.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no params). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics because there are none. The meaningful information about the return output (masked values, both states, timestamps) is a bonus contextual addition.

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 verb+resource+scope: 'List all license keys issued for the current organization.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like licensing_create_key, licensing_revoke_key, and licensing_validate by explicitly stating it lists keys, and contrasts well with the single-key operations. The scope ('current organization') is specific and useful.

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 provides clear context on when this is useful (to verify self-hosted instances are running via lastValidatedAt timestamps) and states the authorization requirement ('Only the organization owner can list keys'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for listing or the when-not-to-use case, but the siblings (create/revoke/validate) provide natural contrast, and the use case stated is clear.

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