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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful operational context: it reports which roles are switched on and whether the executing runtime is healthy, and warns that the role slug must be picked up to be effective. Missing return-format/error details are less critical given the read-only annotation.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns and the second states when to call it and why it matters. The main value is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output scope, status dimensions, and usage rationale. The only minor gap is the exact shape of the returned role objects, but enough context is present for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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 single optional parameter client_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the weight.

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 title and description clearly state this lists micro-worker roles and their operational status. It distinguishes itself from worker lifecycle siblings (create_worker, archive_worker, delete_worker) by focusing on available roles and health rather than managing worker entities.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before delegating specialist work' and explains how the result feeds into create_task's `role` parameter. This gives an agent a concrete when-to-use signal and ties it to an actionable downstream step.

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