Get the workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the implicit scope (the workspace bound to the calling API key, no lookup parameter needed) and the response shape via structuredContent {organization}. It stops short of covering error or auth-failure behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and then the routing guidance; nothing is wasted. The long enumeration of returned fields overlaps with the existing output schema, which makes it slightly heavier than strictly necessary, but it remains scannable and purposeful.

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 trivial, side-effect-free orientation call with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, that it should come first, and where to go next for adjacent data. No gaps remain that would cause a mis-invocation.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly communicates that scope comes from the API key rather than from input, which is the only semantic question this zero-parameter signature raises.

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 and resource ("Returns the Heliyos workspace this API key belongs to") and then enumerates the concrete data returned: id, name, billing status, plan, member count, company/person/deal counts, and watchlist usage against plan limit. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like heliyos_usage_get or heliyos_objects_list.

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 an explicit ordering instruction ("Call it first to orient yourself") and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: heliyos_objects_list for objects and schema ids, heliyos_usage_get for credit usage. An agent knows both when to use this tool and which sibling to pick instead.

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