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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned payload (settings, tokens, members) and an important constraint that only user sessions are supported, which is genuine value. However, it omits the permission level required to view share settings/tokens, whether tokens are masked, and any pagination or rate-limit behavior — meaningful gaps for a tool exposing sensitive token data.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action plus the returned data are front-loaded before the auth qualifier. Every clause 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and states the session-only auth constraint, which is about as much as an agent needs to call it. The remaining gap is not stating the permission level required to read members and tokens.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Workspace (notebook) UUID'). The description's phrase 'for a workspace' merely restates that, adding no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a concrete resource list ('share settings, tokens, and members') scoped to a workspace, which contrasts naturally with the sibling 'share_update_settings'. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the read-vs-update verb distinction is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the read counterpart to share_update_settings / share_revoke_link, and an agent can infer it should be called to inspect state before mutating it. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions and no named alternatives are stated, and 'User session only' functions as an auth constraint rather than routing guidance.

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