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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive call, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it exposes plan-limit comparison, Google connection state, and a remediation hint ('Reconnect Google in the console') that no structured field conveys.

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 resource contents, then a short second sentence to disambiguate from list_forms. Slightly dense with clauses, but each one carries distinct information and nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the payload plus the plan-limit and connection semantics an agent needs to interpret it. Nothing required to call this correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully covered, so no compensating explanation is required.

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 enumerates exactly what the workspace object contains (name, plan, submission/form counts against limits, Google connection status, console address), so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_forms by noting the console renders the same set as Connections.

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?

Usage context is clear: reach for this to read workspace-level state (plan, limits, Google connection) rather than per-form data, and the list_forms overlap note prevents redundant calls. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming every sibling as an alternative.

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