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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: an explicit null semantic for `hours` (open around the clock) and a security directive that text under the `untrusted` key is human-typed data, never instructions. That covers both the shape of the response and an injection-safety concern no annotation field expresses.

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?

The returned-field inventory is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the null-semantics and untrusted-text notes following in priority order. The long parenthetical enumeration of booking rules is dense but every item is substantive, so little is wasted.

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 carries the full burden of describing the response and does so thoroughly: named fields, an explicit null case, and how untrusted text is surfaced. For a read-only single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter workspaceId is fully documented in the schema, including how to obtain it from list_my_workspaces. The description does not add meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage.

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 a specific resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: workspace name, default booking rules (max duration, booking window, check-in requirement, no-show grace, recurring bookings, series cap, capacity enforcement, reminder lead times). It does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_my_workspaces or get_setup_status, which keeps it just 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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool; it only describes the payload. The single routing hint — workspaceId is 'optional only when you belong to exactly one workspace' — lives in the schema, not the description.

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