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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact return shape, the meaning of `promo`, the fact that `workspaceId` may be omitted for a paired session, and the auth recovery path. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then usage and auth. The inline return-shape block is dense but justified because no output schema exists. Slightly heavy but every element earns its place.

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 return contract and does so field-by-field, plus the pairing prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so both `workspaceId` and `sessionToken` are already documented. The description restates the `workspaceId` optionality rule rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the 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 and resource ('List every hatch in a workspace') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as `catalog` or `lookup`, which likely also enumerate resources, so the reader must infer the distinction.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts: recovering lost hatchIds, checking before `hatch` to avoid duplicates, and answering 'what is live'. It also lays out the prerequisite chain (`whoami` → `get_pairing_code`). It stops short of naming a when-not-to-use case or an alternative tool, so it lands at clear-context rather than fully explicit.

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