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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a real security disclosure beyond that — 'API keys are never returned,' telling the agent the response is safe to surface. It stops short of describing ordering or empty-workspace behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 compact sentences: the return content is front-loaded and the sibling pointer follows as a routing clause. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the payload contains (assistants, enabled state, model) and that credentials are excluded — enough to use the result without guessing. For a zero-parameter read tool this is complete.

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 baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-workspace listing and avoids inventing filters. There is nothing further for it to clarify about inputs.

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 a specific verb and resource (list the AI assistants connected to the workspace) and enumerates exactly what is returned: on/off state and the model each answers with. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_* tools and from get_scan_options.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to an alternative, 'For what one site's scan can use, call get_scan_options,' naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. That removes the main ambiguity an agent would face with two similarly scoped calls.

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