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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing that over-quota files are hidden rather than deleted, how this manifests to the author, and that the assistant cannot resolve it by paying (an upgrade does). This is exactly the side-effect and capability-boundary context annotations 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by behavior, then the payment boundary. Every sentence contributes meaning — none is filler or restatement of the name.

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 competently describes the return content (count of hidden files plus reveal cost). It is complete for calling the tool; only a hint about how the cost or count is structured would push it higher.

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 100% and there is a single required workspace_id param, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (returns the number) plus the resource (files hidden due to insufficient disk space) and even the secondary output (cost of revealing them). The scope is unique among siblings — storage tools like get_workspace_storage or manage_workspace_files do not cover quota-hidden files — so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 implies the situation (files hidden over quota, author sees missing attachments) but never states 'use this when...' nor names an alternative tool such as get_workspace_storage. The boundary note that the assistant does not process payment is useful context but is not selection guidance.

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