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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes further by confirming idempotency semantics ('nothing created' on repeat), plus disclosing the refusal condition and the plan/tier outcome of a successful call. It adds real behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 action and the 'call it first' rule before any detail. The middle return-field list is dense but each field carries non-obvious meaning (e.g. `interviews_remaining` does not subtract invited-but-not-interviewed people), so it largely earns its space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and their semantics, and it covers prerequisites, idempotent behavior, and the refusal error path. Nothing an agent needs before invoking 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies. The description instead documents return-side fields (`has_clarity_access`, `interviews_remaining`, `billing_url`), which is helpful but is not parameter semantics.

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 ('Set up the user's Duvo workspace') and immediately disambiguates the idempotent path ('or return the one they already have (`created: false`, nothing created)'). An agent can tell exactly what the tool produces without inspecting the schema.

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 ('Call it first when the user has no workspace') plus the concrete failure mode of skipping it ('other tools fail with User has no current team'). It also defines an exclusion path (refused when the org/email domain is already on Duvo). This is actionable routing guidance.

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