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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it reports 'whether the user can manage it' (a permission gate) and establishes the prerequisite ordering for the mutation siblings. Pagination and auth details are still unstated.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the returned fields are front-loaded and the routing instruction comes last. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (plan, status, trial end, renewal/end date, seat price, cancel flag, manageability). With one optional parameter and full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call this correctly 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 teamId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including 'Omit when the user manages exactly one workspace.' The description contributes only the phrase 'each workspace's', adding no syntax or scoping detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 ('Show') and resource ('each workspace's plan, subscription status, ...') and enumerates exactly what is reported, including seat price and cancellation flag. An agent can distinguish this from manage_subscription or upgrade_plan 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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call it before upgrade_plan or manage_subscription', naming the two alternatives and the ordering condition. Lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., when billing info is already cached), so it falls just short of a 5.

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