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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, description, columnCount, rowCount), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose and scope first, return shape second, sibling routing last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 correctly compensates by listing return fields, and it names the scope. It does not resolve whether projectId or proposalId is required (schema marks none required), leaving a small ambiguity for a 4-parameter list 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 description coverage is only 25% (only limit is documented in the schema). The phrase "in a project or proposal scope" gives semantic intent to projectId/proposalId, which partially compensates, but cursor and limit semantics are not clarified in the description beyond the schema's own note.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (workspace tables) with a parenthetical defining what a workspace table is, and a scope qualifier (project or proposal). It also differentiates from the sibling get_workspace_table by stating that the latter is for column + row detail.

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?

"PREFER get_workspace_table for column + row detail" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, which is strong routing guidance. It does not address when to use list_workspace_rows instead, but that is a different resource and the intent here is clear.

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