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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing host-dependent rendering (interactive card vs. text fallback) and that the result carries current state and available motions. It does not reconcile idempotentHint=false with a read-only 'show' operation, a small 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?

The opening paragraph is front-loaded and useful, but the 'When to use' block paraphrases it almost verbatim and the single-line example adds little, so roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and it still notes that the result carries current state and motions. The workflow sequencing around welcome/explanation and the finalize handoff is covered, but the idempotency discrepancy and card-availability edge cases are left implicit.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description confirms 'Takes no arguments' and explains that the interaction context (card vs. text) is the real input. No parameter semantics are needed beyond that.

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 (show the workspace-setup step) plus the intended outcome (confirm motions, name workspace, save), and explicitly contrasts itself with the committing sibling finalize_workspace_setup. An agent can distinguish it from update_workspace and start_onboarding without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Call this AFTER you've welcomed them, explained what a motion is, and shared your evidence-based read') and names the alternative for the commit path (finalize_workspace_setup). The 'When to use' section restates the same routing rule, leaving nothing to inference.

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