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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the exact response structure, the workspace-paired session requirement, and the recovery flow when the session is not paired.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return shape, use cases, and authentication prerequisite are each covered in compact order. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

Complete for this tool's complexity. With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object and fields, covers both optional parameters through context, and handles the main prerequisite of a paired session. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema documents both parameters well. The description adds context that workspaceId can be omitted in a paired session and that a paired session is required, but this largely mirrors the schema's own parameter descriptions rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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 pre-declares the exact return shape. The use cases ('when you lost tenantIds', 'before hatching') make it clearly distinct from sibling tools like lookup, which implies a more targeted retrieval.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: recovering tenantIds, checking for duplicates before hatching, and reporting live workspace contents. Provides a prerequisite and fallback path (whoami then get_pairing_code), but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or when not to use this one.

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