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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding context the annotations cannot: the fixed 30-day window, the 'server-estimated' qualifier on earnings, and the privacy guarantee that no visitor identifiers or credentials are returned.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the data contents front-loaded and the usage hint plus privacy note trailing. Every clause adds 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the three return categories and flags the privacy boundary, which is enough for an agent to decide to call it. The main gap is parameter sourcing (how to get workspaceId/worldId), which neither the schema nor the description resolves.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. 'For a workspace world' loosely ties workspaceId and worldId to the resource, but gives no format, no hint on where to obtain the IDs, and no explanation of the pattern constraint in the schema.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources returned: 30-day visitor analytics, published page errors, and server-estimated earnings, scoped to 'a workspace world'. That content list implicitly separates it from get_hosted_world (metadata) and list_hosted_worlds, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use this to diagnose site errors' gives one concrete scenario, which is better than nothing. But the tool returns three distinct data categories (analytics, errors, earnings) and only one is addressed; there is no guidance on when to prefer get_hosted_world or get_world_experience instead, and no exclusions.

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