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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds the API-key scope (`workspaces:read`), the shallow tradeoff, and the important mutation constraint that isMandatory custom fields must be supplied or writes fail with 400 VALIDATION_ERROR. These are concrete behavioral details an agent could not infer from annotations or schema alone.

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 dense but front-loaded: it establishes the tool's purpose and onboarding role first, then covers shallow behavior, mandatory custom fields, and auth scope. Every sentence contributes operational information, 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description enumerates the returned workspace structure, explains the shallow mode, notes mandatory custom-field validation, and states the required API-key scope. That is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret this orientation tool correctly.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented, including shallow, account, workspace, and the include* flags. The description reinforces shallow's effect as a tree-only response but otherwise adds limited parameter-specific meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: single-call workspace orientation returning members, spaces, folders, lists, statuses, priorities, task types, custom fields, relationship types, and tags. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools as the broad onboarding call, and the phrase 'call it first when starting in a new workspace' leaves no ambiguity about its role.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: call first when starting in a new workspace, and use shallow=true for a faster tree-only response. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name which tool to use when shallow is insufficient, but the onboarding guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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