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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and nothing here contradicts it. The description adds only that this is a status/entitlement read against a Xero-connected tenant, without disclosing whether entitlement state can be stale, what happens for a workspace with no connected org, or any auth prerequisites.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with every clause naming a concrete returned field. No filler, no restatement of the title, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

A simple read-only tool with one fully documented required parameter and an output schema that already explains the return shape, so the description does not need to spell out return values. Its only real omission is the sequencing relationship with list_shvl_workspaces, which would make the definition self-sufficient.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema text already carries the important constraint ("Never infer a different client workspace"). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Return") and resource (selected SHVL workspace status) and enumerates the exact fields surfaced: workspace name, entitlement state, connected accounting organisation, active Xero agent tenant. That distinguishes it from list_shvl_workspaces (enumeration) by implying a single already-selected workspace, but the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. The only routing hint ("selected") lives in the prose and the workspace_id schema text, not in an explicit instruction such as "call after list_shvl_workspaces once the user picks a workspace."

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