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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description aligns with these and adds useful behavioral context: the data is scoped to the authenticated bearer credential and no specific permission is required. It also points to an API reference, though it does not mention rate limits or error handling.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states what is returned, followed by two brief informative notes (permission and API reference). No filler or redundant wording. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context: it enumerates the exact categories of information returned and notes the zero-permission requirement. It is complete for a simple read-only discovery endpoint.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema describes everything. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description focuses on return values rather than input semantics, which is appropriate.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly enumerates the resources returned (workspace context, discovery URLs, shared request conventions, supported webhook events, public resource operations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_get, which likely only returns workspace context. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that it could serve as a discovery prelude to other API operations. The 'Permission: none' note is about auth, not usage context. There is no 'use this for...' or 'instead of...'.

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