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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context the annotations cannot: results are scoped to the token (no id argument), parent accounts return child accounts too, and the call is cheap. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or auth-failure behavior, so not a 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the parent/child nuance, then the cheap-verification note and endpoint. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming company name, plan, settings and child accounts. For a zero-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint set, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description reinforces this by clarifying that scope comes implicitly from the token rather than any argument, so an agent has no ambiguity about what to pass.

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 ('Fetch the When I Work account (workplace) the token acts on') and enumerates the returned content (company name, plan, settings, child accounts for parent accounts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wheniwork_get_user or wheniwork_list_users because it is scoped to the token's workplace, not a user-supplied id.

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?

'A cheap way to confirm the credentials work' gives an explicit use case beyond simple retrieval, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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