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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the timing cue "now" but says nothing about whether the rescan is synchronous or async, blocking, idempotent, or rate-limited – useful context for a non-read operation that is nonetheless not described.

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 with zero filler; the action and the triggering scenario both land immediately.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essential action and motivation. It is slightly thin on post-call behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both workspace_id and api_token are documented in the schema, including the header-vs-body token guidance. The description's "a workspace" only echoes the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ("Rescan a workspace") so the agent knows this triggers a reindex rather than a read or write of content. It does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g. export_index, query_index, changes), so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase "e.g. after uploading files directly with a storage link" gives one concrete trigger scenario, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use, no mention of required permissions, and no alternative tool named, so it stops short of routing guidance.

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