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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It defines each status value (available, unavailable, offline, unknown), states that membership persists while offline, and explicitly warns that presence is time-limited and does not prove work completion or permission to reassign claims.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the status definitions are compact, and the critical caveats about presence are stated without fluff. No redundant or filler content.

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 explains what data is returned, defines all status values, and covers important behavioral caveats, which is ample for a read-only list tool without an output schema. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or failure modes, but these are minor gaps given the simple parameter surface.

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 is only one optional parameter, connection, and the schema description already covers its semantics in detail (private credential, how it is obtained, retention guidance). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Discover workspace agents, profiles, presence, last_seen_at and presence_expires_at.' It clearly identifies the tool as a list/discovery operation and differentiates it from sibling tools that mutate or act on agents (e.g., agent_profile_update, a2a_enable).

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 implied: this is the tool to call to discover workspace agents and their presence state. It provides rich interpretation guidance for the returned statuses, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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