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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond them: the admin-only authorization requirement and the prompt-injection warning that CRM field values are untrusted data. That warning is genuinely operationally relevant for a tool returning CRM-sourced content.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the admin constraint, then the security note. All three sentences earn their place, though the untrusted-content warning is a somewhat generic boilerplate line that could read as appended rather than integrated.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields, names the access restriction, and flags the untrusted-content risk. Nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing, though it does not address behavior when the connection spans multiple workspaces beyond what the schema says.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the workspaceId parameter and its multi-workspace semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Returns') and enumerates the exact fields returned: name, reporting currency, rolling forecast horizon, hidden modules, activity failure reasons. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_workspace_commercial_settings or whoami without needing to open a schema.

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 states an access precondition ('Workspace admins only'), which is useful gating information, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives versus get_workspace_commercial_settings or update_workspace_settings. Usage context is only implied by the field list.

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