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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of what is returned ('this workspace's active and recent'), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but 'recent' is undefined and there is no hint about result volume or pagination for a list tool with zero parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the scope qualifier second. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations 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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere, and with zero parameters there is little schema to compensate for. The remaining gap is that a no-filter list tool does not say how results are bounded or whether inactive routines are omitted, which affects how the agent should interpret the response.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (server routines) with workspace scoping and a stated subset (active and recent). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_server_routine, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or the other routine tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List this workspace's... routines' tells the agent this is the enumeration entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_server_routine (single fetch) or list_server_events, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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