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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on what they can't convey: role-gated billing, the fact that repository cards and recent jobs are previews rather than full data, and the snapshot.usageCompleteness condition for daily usage. This is meaningful disclosure about result fidelity and access limits, though it says nothing about rate limits or pagination.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the caveats, and each sentence carries real information (scope, role gate, preview semantics, completeness flag, alternative tool). It is dense with qualifiers but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still covers the important behavioral caveats an agent needs: role-gated billing, preview vs complete data, and the usageCompleteness flag. The only gap is not distinguishing itself from open_dashboard.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% – workspaceId is already documented as the ID from list_workspaces with a pattern and length bounds. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get an overview of a Runzumi workspace') and enumerates what it returns: runner status, recent CI jobs, billing, repository cards. It explicitly names the sibling it should lose to for spending data (get_usage), so an agent can separate it from nearby read tools without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative for one case ('For workspace spending, prefer one get_usage call') and a conditional caveat on billing visibility by user role. It stops short of routing against open_dashboard or the other list_* siblings, so selection is clear only for the spending case.

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