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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: it is the 'transparency front door, open to every role,' while schema changes remain admin-only — an access-control distinction not present in the annotations. It does not explain output volume or cost, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded and sectioned, but the 'When to use' paragraph restates the entire contents list from the opening sentence almost verbatim, adding length without new information. The example question is useful; the duplication is waste that undercuts conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still maps what's discoverable (objects, fields, values, relationships, pipelines, motions, qualification). Combined with the access-control note and the pre-read/pre-write timing guidance, nothing an agent needs to call this 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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a parameterless, whole-workspace call ('in one call'), leaving no parameter ambiguity.

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 (describe/learn) and resource (CRM workspace schema), then enumerates exactly what it returns: objects, fields (built-in + custom), valid values with semantic roles, FK relationships, pipelines/stages, motions, and qualification framework. An agent can distinguish this from schema-mutating siblings like define_object or update_field at a glance.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' guidance: read this before reading or writing, and it notes that changing the schema stays admin-only. However, it never names the closest read-oriented alternatives (get_context, show_workspace_setup) so the agent must infer which descriptive tool to pick.

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