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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that returned details include configuration/settings, which is useful content scope, but says nothing about permissions, token-scoped behavior, or how the result differs from get_settings. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is an adequate but modest addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned content are stated immediately and nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the entity and what the response contains. The only gap is that it does not clarify the relationship to the overlapping get_settings sibling.

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%: the workspace_id schema already explains that it accepts a UUID or a user-spoken name and may be omitted when the token has a fixed workspace. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Obtiene detalles de un workspace específico', plus the scope of the payload ('incluyendo configuración/settings'). It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like list_workspaces or get_settings, which also deal with workspace/configuration data, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no disambiguation.

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?

The qualifier 'específico' implies this is for a single known workspace rather than enumeration, which implicitly contrasts with list_workspaces. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing is given, so usage is only inferred.

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