Get the workspace overview

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully discloses the breadth of the response (a single cross-object roll-up). It does not say whether the snapshot is live or cached, nor that it is likely heavier than a scoped read, which matters for an aggregate of this size.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and contents, the second gives the calling trigger. The most actionable instruction is placed last as a natural next step with no 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 no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by listing the object types included plus the attention-items section. Only freshness/cost of the aggregate is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a read-only summary.

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 the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or scoping is possible, which is the only parameter-adjacent fact an agent needs to know.

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 (get) and resource (workspace overview) and enumerates exactly what the summary rolls up: app traffic, webhooks, QR campaigns, funnels, attention items. This clearly distinguishes it from per-object siblings like list_apps, list_funnels, or get_app_report.

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?

"Call this first when the user asks how things are doing overall" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is stronger than most aggregate tools. It stops short of naming the drill-down alternatives (get_app_report, list_apps) that an agent should follow up with, so it is clear context without full routing.

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