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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it previews the response shape (workspaces with unlocked prices plus next steps) and discloses a privacy constraint that other users' prices are not exposed.

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 compact sentences, both earning their place: the first gives the purpose, the second gives the response content and the privacy guarantee. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes what comes back and adds a privacy constraint. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the language enum fully. The description adds nothing about language behavior, which lands it at the baseline 3.

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 in the very first phrase: checking the current approval status of one's own coworking account. The 'eigenes Konto' scoping separates it from booking/invoice/price siblings that operate on other objects, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose – an agent would call this to learn its account's release status – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. vs. coworking_get_price or dollea_get_profile).

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