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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the client secret is never returned, the callback URLs needed at the IdP are included, and the result is null when SSO is unconfigured. That is real added context for a read tool.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the security caveat and null behavior appended in a compact parenthetical/clause. No wasted words and nothing an agent needs is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: callback URLs, no client secret, null when unconfigured. A brief note on whether other credentials/endpoints are returned would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for a zero-param getter.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, so no compensating description is required.

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 verb and resource: 'Show the workspace's OpenID Connect single sign-on settings.' The scope is clear and the mention of callback URLs further pins down what is returned. It does not differentiate from the sibling sso_test (or workspace_get), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus sso_test or workspace_get, and no prerequisites or preconditions. 'Null when none is set up' describes a return state, not usage guidance. An agent must infer the call site from the name alone.

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