ponisha_get_desk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful domain context that a desk only exists after a bid is accepted, but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the returned data is scoped to the caller's role, or response shape.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the clarifying parenthetical placed immediately after the ambiguous term. Nothing is wasted.

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 tool with 0% schema coverage, an undocumented enum, two required identifiers, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent still has to guess at what `part` does and how desk_id relates to project_id before it can call this reliably.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters. It lists 'status, payments, requests, files', which partially mirrors enum values of the `part` parameter, yet it never states that `part` selects a section (and omits overview, information, reviews), nor does it explain the required desk_id versus project_id distinction.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project desk') and adds a parenthetical that defines domain jargon ('the workspace after a bid is accepted'), which no sibling tool covers. It does not explicitly contrast with ponisha_get_project or other retrieval siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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: the phrase 'after a bid is accepted' hints at the lifecycle stage when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. use ponisha_get_project for the pre-bid view).

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