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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description adds useful context beyond them. It documents the returned entry fields, permission booleans for gating, and the required API-key scope.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with what the tool lists before covering returned fields, intended usage, and auth scope. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the fields returned for each space, including the key and permission flags. Combined with the annotations and fully described input schema, an agent has enough information to call and use this 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 the schema already explains the account and workspace parameters in detail. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond noting that the tool operates in the current workspace, so the baseline score applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: list every wiki space visible to the caller in the current workspace. It also clarifies the key's use in subsequent calls, which distinguishes this discovery tool from single-space tools like wiki_get_space.

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 explicitly says to call this first when an agent needs to determine which space a wiki action should target, giving clear usage context. It does not, however, name when to use alternatives such as wiki_get_space when the space key is already known.

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