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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool returns specific workspace details and elaborates on the workspace concept (surfaces/kinds), providing useful context beyond a simple 'get'. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but it clearly conveys a read-only intent and what data to expect.

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 description is concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states purpose and key outputs; the second sentence adds essential background on workspace surfaces and points to related tools. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides enough context for a complex tool: it explains the workspace/surface model and lists the returned fields (columns, member count, row count). It does not fully specify the return structure (e.g., all possible fields or types), but with no output schema, it covers the essentials and compensates reasonably well.

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 schema description for the only parameter 'slug' is thorough (100% coverage), explaining both bare and org-prefixed forms. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond confirming the slug is the key, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get details about a specific workspace by its slug' with specific return fields (columns, member count, row count). It distinguishes from siblings like list_workspaces (which lists all) and get_workspace_schema (which focuses on schema). The verb 'get' and resource 'workspace' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to fetch details for a known slug. It also references list_surfaces for enumerating tabs and mentions /rows and /doc for reading/writing specific surfaces, giving useful related-tool guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when listing all workspaces), though that is implied by the sibling list_workspaces.

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