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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so restating 'read-only' adds nothing. It does contribute one genuinely new behavioral fact — 'not metered' — and the 'active ... owned by the current principal' filter is real scoping information, but ordering and paging are the only other additions.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then usage, then filter semantics, then paging. No filler and nothing repeated beyond the one redundant 'read-only' clause.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers filtering, ordering, paging, and purpose. A minor gap is what 'active' excludes (archived/deleted?) and whether cursor results are stable under new workspace creation, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that name is an exact match after trim and shares the key semantics of create_workspace, which the schema does not say. It also groups limit and cursor under explicit paging intent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope qualifiers: 'Lists active workspaces owned by the current principal, newest first.' The 'active' and 'owned by the current principal' constraints, plus the ordering, let an agent distinguish it from create_workspace and workspace_overview without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition: 'Use it to recover a workspace_tag when none is in hand,' and ties the name filter to create_workspace's key reuse. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the case where a tag is already known, so no true when-not guidance.

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