Which workspace this server works in

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/destructive/openWorld), while the description adds genuinely new behavior: no cost ('free'), and the resolution rules for which workspace is used — signed-in agent uses the connection-time workspace, API key uses the key's workspace. That explains surprising scoping results an agent could otherwise misread.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and payload, then triggers, then the workspace-resolution caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though the Formfeed UI path ('Account → Connected agents') is marginally more detail than an agent needs to select or invoke the tool.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly (workspace, organisation, plan, environment, included/used/prepaid balance). Nothing needed to call it or interpret the result 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; baseline applies. The description instead spends its words on what the (parameterless) call returns, which is the right use of space.

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+resource ('Returns the workspace and organisation this server acts in') and enumerates the payload: plan, environment, and per-period unit counts. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings like list_templates by naming the diagnostic condition under which it is the right call.

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?

Gives three concrete triggers: user asks where a document will land, how many renders are left, or list_templates returns something unexpected. That last one explicitly routes the agent away from list_templates and toward this tool when results look wrong.

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