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

Annotations already declare a safe read, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: deleted documents count until purged 30 days after deletion, access is open to any member including viewers, private projects the caller is not in are excluded from largestDocs, and estimated byte fields are flagged where sizes predate recording. It also carries a prompt-injection warning about untrusted author/viewer text in results.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and nearly every clause documents a distinct returned field, which is necessary given there is no output schema. However, it is a dense semicolon-chained run-on that could be broken into a short purpose sentence plus a structured field list for faster scanning.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: usedBytes/limitBytes composition, nearLimit/overLimit, every breakdown field, largestDocs contents, add-on availability semantics, and upgradeUrl scope. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or trust the result 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing is required or ambiguous on input. The description instead spends its budget documenting the response shape, which is not parameter semantics but is not a gap here either.

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?

Opens with a specific statement of what is returned: storage consumed against the workspace quota, including versions, drafts, and pending purge. It also names the sibling lnkdrp_get_pending_purges for date details, though it does not distinguish itself from other aggregate stats tools like lnkdrp_get_team_stats or lnkdrp_get_project_stats.

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 (quota auditing, understanding what counts toward the limit) rather than stated. There is one useful routing hint toward lnkdrp_get_pending_purges for purge dates, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus the other stats tools.

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