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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about what information is exposed, including tenancy, plan limits, AI credits, and accessible companies. It doesn't detail error conditions or freshness, but it exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary resource and lists secondary details efficiently. The only minor structural issue is that it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, but that does not harm conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives a sufficient account of what is returned. It does not specify exact response fields, but it lists the major categories an agent needs to know. Nothing critical for invocation 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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey. With schema coverage at 100% (vacuously) and no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; the description need not add anything.

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 names the resource (workspace/tenant) and enumerates the returned data categories (plan, features/limits, AI credits, accessible companies), making the retrieval purpose clear when combined with the tool name. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate from the sibling workspace_update, 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?

No indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives like workspace_update or companies_list. The description only states content; it provides no conditions, exclusions, or routing guidance, so a 2 is appropriate.

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