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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavior that this is the source of truth for the tenant_slug used elsewhere, and that it requires no inputs — genuine context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the returned fields come first, the no-parameter fact second, and the trigger condition last. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key fields and explains the tool's role in the broader slug-resolution workflow. Complete for a simple enumeration call.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters,' removing any doubt that a tenant_slug must be supplied here.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('List every workspace your bearer token grants') plus an explicit statement of what the caller gets back: slug, name, and default flag. This is a tenant/workspace enumeration tool and is clearly distinguishable from document/group/project listing siblings.

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 a concrete trigger condition: call it when a refusal reports that the token spans multiple workspaces and you need a non-default one. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when-not-to-call, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool there is little to exclude.

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