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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Local metadata only; no token decryption or provider refresh' rules out network side effects, and the blast-radius note clarifies that the reported impact is Workspace-wide across Agents rather than per-Agent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core claim and followed by the two constraints that matter (local-only, Workspace-wide scope). Minor cost from the opaque phrase 'exact saved provider generation', but no sentence is filler.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description only needs to supply scope and side-effect context, which it does. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the other disconnect-impact and disconnect tools in the sibling list.

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 single provider parameter carries an enum with its own description ('Workspace connection provider whose disconnection impact is inspected'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail — it does not say whether an unconnected or disconnected provider is a valid input or what happens in that case.

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 names a specific verb (Reports) and a specific object (this Workspace's saved provider generation and affected Agent authority), which tells an agent this is a read-only blast-radius preview for a provider connection. It is somewhat jargon-heavy ('exact saved provider generation') and never contrasts itself with the close sibling gmail_disconnect_impact or with provider_disconnect itself, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 implied by the sentence about disconnection spanning all listed Agents, which suggests calling it to understand cross-Agent impact. There is no explicit when-to-use, no 'call before provider_disconnect' framing, and no routing between this and gmail_disconnect_impact even though both cover disconnect-impact inspection.

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