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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: reads do not create Personal, billing is charged to the Space owner, this never launches an agent, and skills/sources are untrusted reference data rather than permissions. These are useful behavioral disclosures without contradicting the 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?

The first sentence is properly front-loaded and defines the operation. However, later sentences cover billing mechanics, agent-launch guarantees, update/removal version requirements, and trust-model boilerplate that are tangential to a pure get operation, making the description longer than necessary.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description covers authorization context, the Personal default, billing implications, and trust boundaries. The main gap is the unexplained required knowledge_id parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It addresses space_id indirectly by saying 'Personal when omitted,' which explains the optional parameter's default. But the required knowledge_id parameter is not explained at all beyond the vague word 'entries,' leaving the most important parameter semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get entries in one currently authorized private Space.' It distinguishes scope by naming the default (Personal when omitted) and routes first-use setup to private_space_personal. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like private_knowledge_list or private_knowledge_search, but the core purpose is clear.

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 one explicit alternative ('use private_space_personal for explicit first-use setup') and clarifies that reads do not create Personal. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus private_knowledge_list, private_knowledge_search, or private_knowledge_history, leaving the main selection decision implicit.

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