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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context about the 'granted' field indicating an OAuth-consented organization, but it does not describe pagination behavior, filtering behavior, ordering, or the overall return 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?

The description is a single tight sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, although the content is under-specified elsewhere.

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 three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should do more to explain inputs and expected results. It only clarifies one return field ('granted'), leaving pagination, filtering, and the membership/workspace distinction unaddressed.

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% for all three parameters (limit, query, cursor), and the description mentions none of them. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation by explaining filtering, paging, or limits.

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 verb and object ('List memberships'), but the object does not match the tool name/title ('workspaces_list' / 'List workspaces') and could be confused with the sibling 'members_list'. An agent can infer it is a listing tool, but the exact resource being listed is not fully clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_get, members_list, or workspace_settings_save. The only usage-related detail is the meaning of the 'granted' marker, not when to select this tool.

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