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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds a genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it errors with 404 until the profile has been set. That pre-empts a common agent failure mode. It does not describe the returned fields, which keeps it below 5.

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 resource, then the downstream uses, then the error condition. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to decide to call it and to handle the 404 state. A brief hint about the returned fields would make it fully complete, but the remaining gap is small.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none exist, implicitly relying on authenticated workspace context.

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?

Specific verb (returns) plus the exact resource (registrant and postal contact details held for the workspace), with two concrete use cases: domain registration filings and CAN-SPAM footer address. That separates it cleanly from the write-side counterpart set_billing_profile.

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?

Names the two reasons the data exists (done-for-you domain orders, CAN-SPAM footers), which implies when it is needed, but never explicitly routes against set_billing_profile or get_workspace_details. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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