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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an account-wide listing mode and the fact that the link is only attached 'when ready', signaling asynchronous readiness semantics. It does not cover polling or rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary scope ('one space') before the alternate mode, with no filler or repetition of the name or annotations.

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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter this is mostly adequate, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with no output schema the description gives almost nothing about the status values or fields returned beyond the link, which is the agent's main reason to call it.

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% and the schema already explains the space_id format and provenance. The description contributes meaning the schema lacks: that omitting space_id switches the tool to an account-wide listing rather than erroring, which is a genuine semantic addition for the single optional 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 names the resource (space) and the operation (retrieve status), and explicitly scopes it as either one space or all spaces on the account. The verb is implicit rather than an explicit action verb, and no sibling tool is named for contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is implied by the phrasing: supply a space and you get its status, omit it and you get every space. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives (e.g., get_tour or create_space) referenced, leaving routing to inference.

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