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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial meaning on top: it defines each presence state (available, unavailable, offline, unknown), notes that membership persists while offline, and warns presence is time-limited and does not prove work completion or permission to reassign claims. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the discover statement, then a compact state glossary. Every sentence carries information, though the presence glossary is dense and could be marginally tighter.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining presence semantics. Combined with thorough read-only annotations, it is nearly complete for a discovery tool; only the relationship to sibling listing tools is missing.

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 one parameter (connection) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents its semantics and sensitivity. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('workspace agents') plus the fields surfaced (profiles, presence, last_seen_at, presence_expires_at). It does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like contacts_list, room_members, or task_context_list, so an agent still has to infer which listing tool fits.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternative. It never says how this differs from contacts_list or room_members, which is a real risk given the crowded sibling set.

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