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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds response field details but no extra behavioral context (e.g., implicit active workspace logic, no side effects). With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One concise sentence with a structured field list; no filler or redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded with 'Account card:' and every word carries meaning.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and full annotations, the description lists all key output fields. It does not mention the effect of workspace_id (that lives in the schema), so slightly incomplete if read in isolation, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single optional parameter workspace_id has 100% schema description coverage ('Only affects which workspace name is returned'). The tool description does not itself elaborate on parameter semantics, but the schema fully compensates, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely enumerates the returned resource: full name, email, Survey Light workspaces (with id, name, role, member count), active workspace id and name. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_profile or list_workspaces by combining account and workspace context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_profile, list_workspaces, or switch_workspace. The description states what the tool does but offers no condition, exclusions, or route to a sibling.

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