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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that — the call incurs no provider spending — but says nothing about pagination, result size, or how the seven filters narrow the output.

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 no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though the density of unexplained jargon slightly hurts immediate comprehension.

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?

Seven parameters with 0 required, low schema coverage and no output schema place the burden squarely on the description, which neither explains parameter effects nor sketches the return shape. For a discovery tool this leaves the agent guessing what it will actually get back.

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 description coverage is only 29%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining url, area, days, limit, offset, direction and workspace. It mentions none of them; the phrases "saved resources" and "sample workflow" are too vague to imply how url or area scope the response.

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?

"Discover saved resources, plan coverage, shared collection ceilings, protocol links and sample workflow" gives a verb and a list of resource categories, so the agent knows this is a capability/quota introspection tool. But the enumerated items are opaque business jargon ("shared collection ceilings", "protocol links") and the description never ties them back to the tool's name-level concept of agent capabilities and allowances, nor distinguishes it from siblings like describe_agent or list_agents.

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 only usable cue is "without provider spending," which implies a cost-free pre-flight check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent why it would pick this over describe_agent, list_agents, or list_brand_workspaces.

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