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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the explicit guarantee 'No action is executed,' clarifying that this tool only returns a workspace and does not trigger a workflow step—important context given the title's 'Continue' wording.

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 short sentences front-load the primary behavior and immediately add the no-action guarantee. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema present, the description plus annotations cover the essential context. It could add a word about the default purpose or how the workspace is selected, but nothing critical 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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It maps the purpose enum to plain-language workflow stages (preparation, signing, import, correction), which helps, but it never directly explains project_id or the purpose values by name; the parameter names and enum must carry that 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 description states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('the selected project workspace'), then scopes it to four agreement workflow stages. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like sparkclose.record_approval or get_investment, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation.

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 identifies clear triggering contexts: agreement preparation, signing, signed-document import, or correction, and undercuts the active-sounding title with 'No action is executed.' It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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