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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description goes further by specifying the returned fields (name, type, capacity, hourly/daily price, booking link, image_url, images), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the what and scoped with the when/not-for. The enumerated room names and returned fields are dense but each item adds signal for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so fully: record fields, pricing granularity, booking link, and images. The address and inventory size also let an agent answer a user's location question without a second call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly conveys that no inputs are needed by framing the call as an unfiltered inventory listing.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Lists the rooms at Zenith Workspaces") and immediately scopes what counts as a room: six named private offices plus one conference room. It also states what the tool is not for (monthly offices/suites), so an agent can distinguish it from listing all inventory.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use when someone asks what rooms or offices Zenith has") and an explicit exclusion (monthly offices or suites, quote only). It does not name or route to the sibling tools (check_availability, get_booking_link, get_info), so the alternatives criterion is only partially met.

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