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 fully covered structurally. The description adds useful domain context about how the values are referenced downstream, but says nothing about the shape of the result (keys plus values, ordering, any pagination) — a real gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, then the concrete definition and usage context. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of 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-argument, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description covers what is listed and why it matters. The only shortfall is that there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what each entry contains (key, value, timestamps), leaving the return shape to be discovered at call time.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any inputs, and it correctly avoids inventing filtering or key arguments that the empty schema would contradict.

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 (list) plus resource (the workspace's global values), and it defines the resource with concrete examples (webinar date, booking link, offer URL) and its rendering form {{global.<key>}}. An agent can tell this apart from get-global-value, create-global-value, and update-global-value from the description alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: by explaining that the values are consumed in templates, automation steps, and conditions, the description hints at why an agent would list them. It never explicitly says when to use this versus get-global-value for a single key, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g. workspace scoping).

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