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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: owner confirmation gates all sending and charging, the meaning of nothing_leaves_because, plan and trial timing, tommo activation status, lead-volume tracking, and domain proof/DNS state. This is rich disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and most of the listed state is relevant for a tool with no output schema. However, the entire description is one dense, run-on sentence with nested parentheticals and semicolon-separated clauses, making it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It comprehensively describes the workspace readiness dimensions: owner confirmation, billing/plan state, tommo status, lead volume, and sending-domain proof with DNS records.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4.

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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: it reads the workspace's readiness state and then enumerates the specific pieces of state returned. It is specific enough to distinguish this from general workspace actions, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'where_the_work_stands'.

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?

The phrase 'before anything can happen' gives a clear usage context: this is a preflight/readiness check to be consulted before acting. It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, but the intended moment of use is explicit.

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