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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses meaningful behavior: which fields are returned, that a disabled approval workflow is reflected, that unauthorized categories/tags come back empty, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. This is useful context that annotations do not provide.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the usage trigger, then the permission and auth caveats. Dense but each sentence carries a distinct piece of information; no filler.

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 burden of explaining return values and does so field-by-field, plus permission edge cases and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented with its source (list_workspaces) and an example. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond restating that it targets one workspace, 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?

The description pairs a specific verb and resource ('get workspace') with an explicit enumeration of the returned data: categories, tags, approval-workflow state, and your role. It also scopes the tool to 'one workspace', which distinguishes it from expensify_list_workspaces.

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?

It gives a clear use condition: 'Read it before creating expenses so the category and tag values match what the workspace allows.' It does not explicitly name list_workspaces as the sibling to call for the workspace identifier, though the schema parameter description covers that.

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