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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the exact return shape and the edge case that held-out accuracy is 'null until something is published', which no annotation conveys. Pagination/volume behavior is not mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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, each doing distinct work: the return-field list, the definition of 'shim', and the entry-point cue. The most actionable guidance (start here for a shimId) is not buried, and there is no filler.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating every returned field plus the null-accuracy edge case. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Only one parameter (workspace) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slug semantics and token/default-workspace behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (list every shim) and enumerates exactly what the listing contains: id, name, the question it answers, answer/example counts, and published held-out accuracy. It also defines the domain term 'shim', so the agent knows what it is listing without opening any schema, and it is clearly differentiated from the singular workbench_shim_get.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent as an entry point ('Start here to get a shimId'), which tells it to call this before the get/add_answer/add_examples siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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