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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: no payment, pre-funded with 1000 units, expiry after one hour, permanent deletion, rejection of deposit/refund, and return shape. This is thorough behavioral context.

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 description is informative but slightly longer than necessary. It is well-structured with a clear first sentence and subsequent details, but some redundancy (e.g., 'no payment, no arguments, works immediately' could be tightened). Still, every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, usage, expiry, deletion, return shape, and unsupported operations. It even addresses edge cases like 'task won't fit in an hour'. Nothing 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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty. The description explicitly states 'no arguments', which adds clarity beyond the schema (which could be ambiguous if empty). No parameter explanations are needed, and the description handles it perfectly.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Create a free trial workspace' and distinguishes it from the primary sibling (aanet_create_workspace) by explicitly comparing use cases. The verb, resource, and differentiator are all present.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool over the alternative: 'Use this instead of aanet_create_workspace when you want to exercise the API... before committing real money.' Also provides the exclusion: 'If your task won't fit in an hour, create a real workspace instead.'

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