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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('counts by workspace come with it') and that it is a cheap/fast read, but never states read-only semantics, auth expectations beyond the token param, or any rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed immediately by the routing rule. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple count tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what it computes and roughly what it returns. It is nearly complete; only the read-only/auth profile is left implicit.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (including the important 'omit for CURRENT workspace, other workspaces NOT included' note). The description adds only the 'by account/workspace' scoping, which duplicates the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope ('fast product counts by account/workspace'), which an agent can distinguish from autowhisper_products (full listing) and autowhisper_cmo. It does not explicitly name autowhisper_products as the sibling alternative, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 ('how many products do I have?') and routes away from a costlier alternative ('instead of spending a CMO chat turn'). Clear context, though it does not state when NOT to use it versus autowhisper_products.

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