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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that 'read' accesses private works or band tracks 'with this key' and that 'mine' returns private artifacts, which is useful auth/privacy context, but the trailing 'keep' instruction describes a write-like action (walking the chain, sharing the day's pool) that no schema parameter supports, leaving the read/write profile ambiguous.

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 definition is a single run-on clause stuffed with pipe-separated selectors and bare abbreviations, which is poorly front-loaded and hard to parse. The orphaned trailing 'keep' sentence adds an unrelated action mid-definition and buries the one piece of explanatory context.

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 15-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is far from complete: it never explains what each selector returns, what units or formats the letter params take, or how the 'keep' action is actually invoked given no matching parameter exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it maps single-letter params to selectors (a/b for diff, from/n for chain, holder for licenses, pid/part for files and licensable, work/kind/currency for quote, p for path, q for bands). However the mapping is cryptic shorthand with no types, formats, or value descriptions, so many parameters remain guesswork.

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 opening 'Look at the Workshop' restates the tool name rather than stating a specific verb+resource, but the long selector list (overview, bands, band, work, version, diff, chain, mine, read...) does reveal that this is a polymorphic read-dispatch tool over Workshop entities. An agent can infer the domain but not cleanly distinguish it from siblings like workshop or bureau_look, which are never mentioned.

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 enumerates the valid 'what' selectors but never says when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (workshop, bureau_look, use_key, whoami) or when not to. Usage is only implied by the list of selector names; there are no exclusions or routing hints.

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