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

Adds material context beyond the annotations: although readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses that start_import:true queues a background job that writes contacts and touches, and that the plain read never fetches anything. That reconciliation of a read-only hint with a side-effecting flag is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations can't carry. It stops short of saying how long the job takes or how completion is signalled.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the empty-workspace/start_import behavior is restated three times (first paragraph, 'When to use' paragraph, and again in the schema description). The repetition inflates length without adding information, though the leading sentence remains well-structured.

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 need no prose. The description covers the trigger, the follow-up tool, the one-shot import flag, and the skippability of questions. The only real gap is the unaddressed relationship to the show_workspace_setup 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents start_import, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real semantics: that it should be passed 'once', that it queues a background inbox+calendar import rather than performing a synchronous fetch, and that a subsequent call without it reveals results.

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 — 'Returns the workspace-setup interview' — and enumerates its payload (import evidence, motions/templates, open questions). It names the follow-up sibling finalize_workspace_setup, but never distinguishes itself from show_workspace_setup, the closest sibling by name.

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?

'When to use: Run when a workspace is new — and anytime after, to revisit setup' gives an explicit trigger and explicitly routes the agent onward to finalize_workspace_setup once answers exist. It does not explain when to prefer this over show_workspace_setup, leaving one real ambiguity.

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