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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is narrower. It adds useful behavior the annotations cannot: quote-only items return contact details rather than a price, and the optional keyword filter shapes results. It doesn't mention response shape or whether calls are cached, but that is minor given the annotations.

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 the core purpose followed by the content inventory and then the filter semantics and the quote-only caveat. It is a single dense, slightly run-on sentence, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-optional-param lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what content is available, how to filter, and the one pricing exception. It could be slightly more complete by describing the response form (structured fields vs. FAQ text), but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional `topic` param, which would be a baseline 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Optional topic or keyword' by listing accepted topic values and allowing free-form keywords. That is real added semantic value because no enum exists in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Returns general information about Zenith Workspaces') and then enumerates the exact content returned: address, phone, email, access hours, parking, directions, and FAQ topics. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_spaces or check_availability, which deal with inventory rather than static info.

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 topic filter values (pricing, booking, mail, access, amenities, or any keyword) give concrete guidance on how to scope a call, and the note that monthly offices are quote-only tells the agent not to expect a price there. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool instead, so routing is only implied.

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