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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing an access-control requirement ('Private spaces require membership') and specifying the read scope, which helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The core action and returned fields are front-loaded, and the access constraint follows. Every word earns its place.

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 compensates by naming the key return fields and disclosing the membership requirement. Given annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters, this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling differentiation and behavior on membership failure are absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain the detail or max_tokens parameters beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it map output fields to detail levels. It adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource and lists exactly what is returned: goal, status, version, and role. Naming these fields differentiates get_space from siblings like get_space_entry, get_space_policy, and get_space_proposal, whose purposes are distinct.

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 implies the use case (reading a space's core state and your role) and notes a precondition for private spaces, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over the many space-related siblings (get_space_entry, get_space_policy, get_space_activity_summary). No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer routing.

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