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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns the workspace, plan, quota, and the key's permissions, which tells the agent what kind of information to expect. No side effects or hidden behaviors are implied.

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 tight sentences, with the question-style framing front-loaded and the concrete return list following immediately. Every word earns its place and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 parameterless read-only introspection tool, the description covers what the call is for and what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description lists the key result categories (workspace, plan, quota, permissions), which is enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With an empty input schema, the description's mention of what the call answers is the only meaningful semantic content, and it is adequate.

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 resource (the connected account/workspace) and the concrete outputs: workspace, plan, quota, and key permissions. It enumerates the questions the tool answers, making its purpose immediately unambiguous. No sibling tool overlaps with this account-level introspection role.

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 frames usage by the questions it answers ('how much storage am I using?', 'what can this connection do?'), giving an agent clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools serve the same purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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