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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses what information is returned, and the non-obvious constraint that an API key never holds more than its issuerRole.

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 content is dense but front-loaded with the resource being described, and each clause earns its place. The single long sentence is slightly hard to parse but not padded.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needs only to convey purpose, usage timing, and key behavioral constraints — all of which it does, including the pre-emptive-check guidance and the issuerRole caveat.

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% and the description's 'Takes only the optional workspaceId' plus 'the current one unless workspaceId names another' largely restates the schema's default-behavior documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb (describe) and resource (this connection in the workspace) and enumerates exactly what is returned: auth type, role, permission keys, draft/schedule/publish capabilities, and a summary. This clearly distinguishes it from workspace-oriented siblings like list_workspaces or account 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before an action the role may not allow, instead of trying and reading a 403.' That names the alternative behavior it replaces, though it does not explicitly point to sibling tools for workspace discovery or role management.

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