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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it explains that nothing is executed (advisory mode, all tiers off) and that the call does not spend quota. The ruleset-version stability semantics also give behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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 content is dense but the structure is muddled: output-field explanation, cross-tool instructions, and an API-endpoint comparison are interleaved with backtick fragments and a long parenthetical. No sentence is entirely wasted, but the ordering could be clearer and the phrasing more front-loaded.

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 burden of describing return values, and it does so for plan, checks, ruleset version, databases/dialect, and execution mode. That is largely complete for a zero-parameter status tool, though the relation to get_config could be spelled out more fully.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 names the concrete contents of the response (plan, remaining CI checks, ruleset version, databases with dialect) rather than just restating the name. That is enough for an agent to know this is a workspace-status read. It does not directly distinguish itself from the sibling get_config, only from the API endpoint `GET /ci/config`, which is weaker differentiation.

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?

It provides cross-tool guidance: pass the returned dialect to check_sql, and the ruleset version means an earlier check_sql verdict still holds while it matches. That tells the agent how to consume the output but not explicitly when to choose this tool over get_config or setup_status. Usage is implied rather than stated with exclusions.

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