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

The annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description repeats read-only while adding the useful returned data fields. It does not discuss permissions beyond the workspace_key prerequisite, error behavior, or freshness of counts, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 definition is two compact sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded and the return scope stated directly. There is no redundant or filler text, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description provides the prerequisite and enumerates the main returned fields. It could go slightly further on what the counts represent or what happens with an invalid key, but it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single workspace_key parameter is fully described in the schema. The description restates the prerequisite without adding format, validation, or alternative meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly identifies a read-only retrieval of workspace/brokerage settings and enumerates the returned fields (name, URLs, plan, owners, counts). It does not use a direct verb or explicitly distinguish this from siblings, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite that workspace_key comes from create_workspace. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to alternatives such as get_branding or about_avlira, and no exclusions.

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