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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning 'do not assume a stale agent is malicious,' which shapes how an agent should interpret stale presence results. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 very short and front-loaded: it gives the resource scope first, then the purpose, then an interpretive caution. It earns its place with no filler, though the telegraphic 'id=space.' could have been expanded into a more natural sentence.

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 read-only list tool with a rich schema, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the target object and the high-level information returned (skills, capacity, stale presence). However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape of presence records, how stale is determined, or how this relates to set_space_presence, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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?

All five parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful mapping 'id=space,' clarifying that the otherwise generic resource ID refers to a space identifier. It does not add detail for limit/cursor/detail/max_tokens, but the schema already covers those fully.

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 states a clear read-only purpose: 'Discover skills/capacity and stale presence' in the resource named by id. It names the resource scope ('id=space') but does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_space_members or set_space_presence, so it misses the top of the scale.

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 use case is implied: call this tool to inspect presence and detect stale agents in a space. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, such as using set_space_presence to update presence or list_space_members for roles, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name.

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