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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by clarifying the boundary of the operation — it reports status only and neither grants access nor exposes credentials — which prevents the agent from mistaking it for an onboarding action.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope limit. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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-param, read-only status probe with full annotation coverage, the description supplies all an agent needs to decide to call it. It does not hint at what the returned status looks like and there is no output schema, but that gap is minor for a check tool.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing is left ambiguous about inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb (Check) and a specific resource (authorized workspace connection and setup status), which is distinct from the provisioning siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 negative clause 'Does not provision access or return credentials' implicitly steers the agent toward setup_workspace for provisioning, which is useful routing. However, no alternative is named explicitly and no prerequisites or when-to-use condition is stated.

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