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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact data categories returned (available, reserved, used), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss error behavior or meaning of 'reserved,' but for a simple read-only summary this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or repetition of the title. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and scope.

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-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and the scope. It does not describe output format, but no output schema exists and the simple credit summary result is sufficiently implied by the description.

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%, and the workspaceSlug parameter already has a clear description in the schema ('Workspace slug selected during agent authorization'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a precise resource ('available, reserved, and used assessment credits') scoped to 'the approved workspace.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling get_* tools such as get_assessment and get_workspace.

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 description implies this tool is used to check credit status for the approved workspace, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on scenarios like pre-launch credit validation or why one would call this instead of launch_assessment.

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