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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context about returned contents and ID provenance, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as auth requirements or scope constraints. No contradiction exists.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second provides the crucial ID source. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return content, identifies the required parameter, and explains how to obtain that parameter. Annotations cover side-effect safety, so nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by telling the agent exactly where to obtain workspaceId — from campaignstack_whoami — which adds practical meaning beyond the bare string parameter in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Get workspace details') and enumerates meaningful contents: name, company info, industry, and settings. This distinguishes it from sibling workspace-specific getters like get_workspace_billing, get_workspace_branding, get_workspace_metrics, and get_workspace_voice.

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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite by stating that workspaceId is returned by campaignstack_whoami. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over its workspace-related siblings or mention any exclusions, so the usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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