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 meaningful behavior beyond that: it warns that counts are 'observations, not a reputation or truth score,' which prevents over-interpretation of the returned numbers. It also clarifies what categories of work are summarized.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first phrase, 'id=space,' immediately scopes the tool, and the rest defines the output content and interpretive caveat. Every element 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?

For a simple read-only summary tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the scope, the kinds of counts returned, and an important caveat about their meaning. It does not describe the response shape or provide routing guidance versus sibling tools, but those are not essential given the annotations and schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one valuable semantic detail beyond the schema: 'id=space' tells the agent that the required id must identify a space resource. The other parameters, detail and max_tokens, are already well documented in the schema, so no additional description is needed.

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 names a specific output: 'Compact task-state counts, blocked/stalled work and open reports/proposals' and scopes it to 'id=space.' This clearly distinguishes it from related getters like get_space or list_space_proposals, which return full objects/lists rather than compact counts.

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 this tool is for a high-level activity summary via words like 'compact' and 'counts,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_space, get_space_changes, or the various list_space_* tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is left mostly to inference.

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