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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent, and the description mostly restates "Read-only", but it adds real behavioral context: designing requires an active subscription, image URLs from non-whitelisted hosts are refused, and other tools implicitly use this same workspace. The remediation path (Workspace Settings > Domain Whitelisting) is genuinely useful failure-handling guidance.

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?

It is one dense paragraph rather than a bulleted structure, but it is front-loaded with the return payload and then the when-to-call guidance. Nearly every sentence carries actionable information; only the bare "Read-only." clause duplicates annotations.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description takes on the full burden and discharges it: it describes the return contents, the subscription prerequisite, the image-domain constraint and its workaround, and the workspace-switching model.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explaining that no workspace id is passed and that switching workspaces requires a reconnect rather than a parameter, which preempts a likely agent mistake.

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 ("Return the Kalpana workspace this connection designs in") and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, slug, subscription status, allowed_image_domains), which makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_design or list_pages.

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?

Gives three explicit trigger conditions (need the workspace name, a tool reports missing subscription/credits, before placing an image from a URL) plus explicit alternatives: upload_images for images on unlisted hosts, reconnecting to switch workspaces, and the note that no other tool takes a workspace id.

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