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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'lean', 'raw TOON text') but does not explain output format, pagination, or any side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 short but cryptic; it uses unclear terminology and lacks logical flow. It is not concise because clarity is sacrificed, and the three sentences do not convey essential information efficiently.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation beyond read-only, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return format, or usage constraints, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of parameters (page, query, perPage, ownership). The agent must infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 suggests the tool lists spaces but uses unclear jargon ('TOON text', 'lean catalog'). It mentions sharing webUrl and references spaces_show, which partially clarifies purpose but does not clearly define what the tool returns or its scope.

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?

Provides some guidance: use spaces_show for inline canvas preview and avoid creations_search. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus other spaces tools or when NOT to use it, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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