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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by listing the returned DTO fields and stating the required API-key scope (`wiki:spaces:read`), which is real auth context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, return shape second, alternative third, with the auth scope appended. No filler and the routing cue is not buried.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the DTO fields the caller gets back, names the alternative for deeper data, and states the required scope. Combined with complete schema parameter docs, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (including account and workspace) are already documented in the schema, including the uppercase-space-key format. The description only implies the spaceKey lookup and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource (fetch a single wiki space by key) and enumerates the returned DTO fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wiki_get_space_with_pages, preventing confusion with the closest sibling.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('For the page tree inside the space, use wiki_get_space_with_pages instead'). It doesn't address wiki_list_spaces (browsing many spaces) or wiki_retrieve, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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