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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that the optional context parameter is never included in the answer and is never used for ranking, and it explicitly scopes out login/API key/billing data. It does not describe response format or edge cases, but for an informational root query this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the key exclusion is clearly stated, and every sentence adds value.

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 zero-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what data it returns, why it exists, and what it is not. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape, but the low complexity makes this adequate.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds useful context about the account/workspace distinction, but that is not parameter-level semantics.

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 is specific and action-oriented: it identifies the workspace root as the source for plan, saved-search/list counts, and their locations. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the account endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool ('what do I have here and what can I afford' in one call) and explicitly warns against using it for account-level concerns by naming the alternative endpoint. This is clear routing guidance with an explicit exclusion.

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