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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real information by naming the exact data surface and explicitly excluding people/employee data. It does not cover pagination, size, or freshness of usage counts, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter read.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, second sentence carrying the scope exclusion. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value picture, and it does list the returned fields. It stops short of formats or caveats for the dynamic values ('plan limits and usage counts'), but for a simple read that is a minor omission.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The field enumeration adds no parameter meaning but also introduces no confusion.

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 ('workspace profile') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (name, logos, website, description, time zone, plan limits, usage counts). That is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like vs_workspace_update and from the narrower vs_workspace_settings_get / vs_workspace_branding_get, though the boundary with those two read siblings (whose fields partially overlap: logos, time zone) is not drawn explicitly.

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?

'People and their details are left out' hints at scope and points away from a personnel-listing use case, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs vs_workspace_settings_get or vs_workspace_branding_get guidance. Usage is implied by the field list rather than stated.

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