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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact return contract ('only key metadata and the exact agent UUID or null'), the inactive-agent case with disabledAt, and the auth/membership prerequisites. It stops short of describing failure behavior when no binding exists or when membership is stale.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and scope, then return contract, then prerequisites, then the sibling handoff. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't document the return payload in full, and it still sketches it usefully. Prerequisites, sequencing, and exclusions are all covered. Minor gap: no mention of what an agent should do when the read returns null (i.e., proceed to register) or when membership checks fail.

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 50%: context is fully documented in the schema, workspace_id has only a format/pattern. The description says 'one explicit workspace', which confirms workspace_id scoping but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema's UUID pattern. With the schema doing most of the work, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Read the task-agent identity bound to this connection's existing API key') plus the scoping constraint ('in one explicit workspace'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling task_agent_register, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Use this before task_agent_register and retain key.id as expected_key_id') and clear exclusions ('Does not register, assign or start any task'). Preconditions (API-key connection, current workspace membership) are stated rather than implied.

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