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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds auth context not present in structured fields by framing the result as scoped to the token's default workspace. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes when the token is invalid, which would have pushed it higher.

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 compact sentence pair with zero filler; the behavioral fact (what it answers) is front-loaded ahead of the pointer to the alternative. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the tool takes no parameters and mutates nothing. Auth scoping is covered by the "token grants" framing, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rubric; the empty schema is fully self-consistent and the description needs to add nothing about arguments. It correctly does not waste words restating that no inputs are required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource – "Health check" – and immediately says what it returns ("ok and your default workspace slug"), which distinguishes it from every kb_* CRUD sibling. An agent can tell from one sentence that this is a connectivity/auth probe, not a data operation.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: "Call kb_tenants_list to see every workspace the token grants," i.e. use this for the single default workspace, use the sibling for the full list. It stops short of stating when to reach for this tool (e.g. to validate credentials before a batch of calls), so not quite a 5.

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