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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it is dual-mode, returning an account-wide summary when called bare and acting as the discovery mechanism that yields workspaceIds. Pagination, volume limits and refresh cadence are not addressed.

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 sentences, no filler. The first front-loads what the agent gets; the second gives the operational instruction. Nothing is repeated and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden — and it does, itemizing sites, pending drafts, threads needing reply, sent counts and remaining credits. Combined with the no-arg discovery instruction for a single optional parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, and the schema already states 'Which site to act on. Call get_status with no arguments to list them.' The description restates the same no-argument listing behavior rather than adding syntax, default, or format detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

The description names the resource (account) and enumerates exactly what it returns — sites, drafts awaiting approval, threads needing reply, sent emails, remaining credits — which implicitly positions it as the aggregate overview over siblings like list_pending_drafts, list_inbox, list_sent and get_sending_health. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of those' but the content enumeration gives an agent enough to tell it apart.

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?

It gives a concrete calling pattern: invoke with no arguments first to enumerate sites and obtain their workspaceId. That establishes both the discovery workflow and the precondition for the workspaceId parameter. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to drill into get_thread or list_inbox instead), so it is clear context without full routing.

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