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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 404-until-configured failure mode and the semantic purpose of the data (registrar filing vs CAN-SPAM footer). No return format/pagination detail, but not needed for a fixed-profile read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return content and ending with the error precondition. Dense but every clause carries meaning; the em-dash gloss is slightly elaborate but informative rather than wasteful.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming both data categories and their purpose. Combined with the failure-mode note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only a precise field list/typing is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing a fixed per-workspace lookup, adding nothing misleading about parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Returns the registrant and postal contact details held for the workspace') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling set_billing_profile and from generic workspace lookups like get_workspace_details.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition — 'Errors with 404 until set_billing_profile has been called' — which routes the agent to the sibling setter before invoking this. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over other workspace-info tools.

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