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

The single most important behavior here is not in the annotations: the call renders a card to the user rather than returning data to the agent, and the read tools correspondingly display nothing. The description also instructs a one-line confirmation afterwards instead of repeating the content, which is actionable behavior an annotation cannot express.

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 verb, the audience, and the trigger, then the value mapping, then the follow-up rule. Dense and largely waste-free, though the long parenthetical chain of tool names makes it slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted mapping would be.

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 polymorphic dispatcher over nine sibling tools with no output schema, the description covers the when, the what-per-value, argument pass-through, and post-call behavior, and the schema covers workspaceId scoping. Nothing material for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping each enum value to the backing tool (campaign -> readCampaign's broadcastId, flows -> readFlows with `kind`, products -> readProducts' search) and by explaining that `arguments` are that tool's own. That mapping is the real meaning an agent needs and it is not derivable from the enum alone; the remaining looseness is that `arguments` is delegated by reference rather than itemized.

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?

"Show the person something from Kooga ... a card in the chat that opens into a full view" names a specific verb, an audience (the person, not the agent), and the output form. It explicitly separates itself from the read* siblings by stating those "show nothing" for the agent's own lookups.

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 condition ("only when they ask to see it ('show me...')") and an explicit alternative for the other case (use the read tools for your own lookups). It also names the nine situations via the enum mapping, so there is no ambiguity about which sibling to call for a given intent.

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