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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies what the compliance settings contain (the GDPR Article 14 notice toggle and fixed text) and clarifies the read-only nature by contrasting with the update tool. It doesn't describe the output schema, but an output schema exists, so that burden is already carried.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and the exact data returned, the second gives the trigger condition, and the third routes to the sibling. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information 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 read-only, single-parameter tool with a rich schema, detailed annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to call it, and which sibling to use for the write operation. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the workspaceId parameter thoroughly, including the distinction between user keys (csu_) and workspace keys (cs_) and the role of campaignstack_whoami. The description adds the context that this tool reads compliance settings, which helps the agent understand why the parameter matters, but the schema does the heavy lifting. A 4 is appropriate because the schema is exceptionally detailed and the description reinforces the parameter's purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a workspace's compliance settings'), and the exact content returned (whether the GDPR Article 14 lawful-basis notice is appended to the first LinkedIn message or email, plus the fixed notice text). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling update tool by naming it 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user asks whether the notice is turned on, or before proposing to change it.' It also names the alternative tool for changing the toggle: 'Use campaignstack_update_workspace_compliance to change the toggle.' This is exactly the kind of routing an agent needs.

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