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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the returned data categories and the conditional workspace-listing behavior when no workspace_id is supplied. It does not cover rate limits or full return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Start here,' then a tight catalog of returned data, then the branching rule in one clause. No filler; every phrase informs invocation or interpretation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming what the call returns (user, plan, credits, brand/account summaries, capabilities) and how workspace ambiguity is resolved. Adequate for an entry-point read tool whose annotations cover safety; minor gap in not describing the shape of the workspace list beyond id/name/role is acceptable.

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 both parameters are already documented, including workspace_id being conditionally required. The description repeats that condition and adds the listing/ask flow, but request_id is untouched; this is a baseline 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (gets the user profile) and enumerates what it surfaces: user, plan, Creative Credits, brand/account summaries, capabilities. 'Start here' further frames it as an entry-point lookup, which helps distinguish it from deeper siblings like get_workspace_context or get_brand_profile, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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?

'Start here' is an explicit when-to-use directive, and the description details the multi-workspace branch (list workspaces, ask the user, then pass workspace_id). It lacks explicit 'instead use X' routing to siblings, but the sequencing guidance is strong and actionable.

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