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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the starter space counts toward the space limit, and the `untrusted` key carries human-typed text to be treated as data rather than instructions — a meaningful injection-defense note. It does not mention authorization requirements or result shape beyond the field list.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields before the caveats. The first sentence is a dense comma-list, but every clause carries information (limits, invitations, trial days) and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so by enumerating the status fields. Combined with the untrusted-text safety note and the starter-space rule, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the result. A note on permission requirements or error behavior is the only real gap.

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?

There is a single optional workspaceId and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the single-workspace default. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for it, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work.

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 states the specific contents returned for a workspace: Terms acceptance, spaces and members against trial limits, invitations sent today, and trial days left. That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing this from the sibling get_workspace_info or list_members, so an agent must infer which read to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the trial-limit and Terms framing suggests onboarding/gating checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_workspace_info or get_billing_link. An agent can guess the context but is not routed.

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