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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is pre-cleared. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: an admin privilege requirement, an API-key scope, and a semantic warning that `isPublic` is a different concept — all of which prevent misuse.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the returned fields, then the disambiguation, then the access requirements — a logical order with no filler. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema.

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, enumerating the returned DTO fields is exactly the missing information an agent needs to interpret results. Access requirements, scope, and the conceptual distinction from `isPublic` are all covered, leaving nothing material unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so `spaceKey`, `account`, and `workspace` are fully documented in the schema already. The description contributes nothing about parameters beyond the admin/permission framing, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (get a space's public-web publishing settings) and names the concrete DTO it returns. It also explicitly disambiguates from the `isPublic` flag, which is the natural source of confusion with sibling `wiki_get_space`, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it is the read side of public-web publishing, separate from internal workspace visibility, and requires space admin with the `wiki:spaces:read` scope. It does not explicitly name `wiki_set_public_settings` as the mutation counterpart, though the tool name makes the pairing obvious.

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