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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by naming the returned fields (grant status, expiry, scopes, draft-edit permission), which tells an agent what this inspection actually exposes; a rate-limit or auth caveat would have pushed it higher.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the return payload followed by the sibling contrast. No filler, no repetition of title or annotations.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to orient the agent — which it does by summarizing the payload and pointing at the sibling. Nothing needed to call it 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Mentioning the returned fields is tangential but harmless; baseline 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate.

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 (Returns) and enumerates exactly which resources are returned: authorized Workspace, actor/client IDs, grant status/expiry, scopes and draft-edit permission. Explicitly distinguishes itself from workspace_read, which returns only Workspace identity.

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?

By contrasting with workspace_read ('returns only Workspace identity'), it implicitly tells the agent to call this tool when the full grant/scope/permission context is needed. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisite statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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