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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: open-source vs cloud resolution, API-key-dependent user identity, default-space behavior, and the need to select a specific space via header. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs beyond structured annotations.

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 description is wordy and contains unrelated general-purpose content about ChangeRequests and treating stored content as data. The multi-space instruction is effectively repeated, the first sentence is a fragment, and the block would be stronger if trimmed to the auth context, endpoint, and space-selection guidance.

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?

The description provides the return fields, endpoint, environment-specific behavior, and a clear calling sequence, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. The main residual gap is the ambiguity between the targetSpaceId parameter and the x-busabase-space header, and there is no exact response shape despite the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema already documents targetSpaceId with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces asking the user which space to use, but it also introduces the x-busabase-space header without clearly distinguishing it from the targetSpaceId parameter. It adds no new type, format, or validity semantics.

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?

Title and description state clearly that this tool verifies auth and returns the target space, acting user, membership, and all spaces. The concrete GET /api/v1/auth endpoint anchors the resource, and the listed outputs distinguish it from generic authentication helpers.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: call auth_verify first, before playbooks search, and for multi-space accounts ask the user which space to use and pass targetSpaceId. It also warns against relying on the default space when spaces has multiple entries. It does not name alternative siblings like users_me, but the usage context is clear.

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