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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing 'No model or network call', which tells the agent there is no latency, cost, or external dependency. It stops short of describing the response format, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the call-to-action ('Start here when connecting an agent'), that packs the workflow scope, field handoff, boundaries, and the no-side-effect guarantee without a wasted clause.

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?

For a parameterless guide with no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations about what the agent will learn. The only minor gap is that it does not indicate the shape of the returned guide (e.g. prose/markdown sections), which would help the agent plan how to consume it.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for parameter documentation.

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+resource ('explains what workspaceAlberta does') and enumerates the content covered: workflow, handoff fields, data boundaries, unsupported actions. It is unmistakably the orientation doc and cannot be confused with any of the task-oriented siblings like search_opportunities or bid_no_bid_scorecard.

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?

'Start here when connecting an agent' gives explicit sequencing guidance that positions this ahead of every sibling tool. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases, but for a zero-parameter guide with no alternatives there is little else to route against.

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