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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it is scoped strictly to workspaces you OWN as the paying account, and it fails when that set is empty. That ownership constraint is the key calling risk and it is disclosed. Return shape is described but no caveats on freshness/aggregation cost.

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?

Scope and ownership constraint are front-loaded, followed by the payload enumeration and trigger examples. The middle metric list is dense and runs long as a single sentence, but each item earns its place since no output schema exists to describe the return.

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 carries the full burden of return-value disclosure and does so exhaustively, including per-workspace status, agent state, and the specific attention categories. Combined with the failure condition and ownership scoping, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or targeting arguments are accepted.

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 resource (aggregated overview of ALL owned workspaces) with a precise scope: the paying account, not workspaces you merely belong to. The enumerated payload (weekly closed comparison, in-progress, agent activity, per-workspace traffic light, attention items) makes it unmistakably distinct from list_workspaces and stats siblings.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasing: questions like «¿cómo va la compañía?» or «¿qué está parado?». It also declares a hard precondition (fails if you own no workspace). It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. workspace_stats for a single workspace), so routing is strong but not fully explicit.

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