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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. It does add value by disclosing the concrete return payload, which the agent otherwise couldn't infer without an output schema, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown or inaccessible key.

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?

Two short sentences, return payload front-loaded, requirements after. The 'Input: workspace_key' clause is mildly redundant given the single required parameter, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the job of describing the return values, and with 100% schema coverage on the single parameter there is little else to explain. Complete enough to call correctly; only the failure mode for an invalid key is unaddressed.

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 parameter already carries a description explaining that the key comes from list_workspaces. The description only restates 'Input: workspace_key', adding no format, casing, or lookup detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get one workspace') and enumerates exactly what comes back: workspace name, key, id plus the signed-in user's name, email, and role. That enumeration makes it unmistakable versus list_workspaces.

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?

Singular 'one workspace' plus the required workspace_key implies this is the single-item lookup and list_workspaces is the plural one, but the description never states when to prefer it or points at the alternative. The routing hint ('Call list_workspaces to see the workspaces you have access to and their keys') lives only in the schema, not here.

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