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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds behavioral detail the annotations cannot: OAuth logins see every org grouped by org name, while API-key connections see only the bound workspace. That auth-dependent scope difference is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before interpreting results.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, then usage, then a compact example. The example JSON block with empty arguments is a small luxury for a no-parameter tool, but it is short and illustrative rather than padding.

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-value detail is not needed. The description covers the two things an agent could not infer: the auth-dependent result scope and how the returned workspace values are consumed by other tools. Nothing material is missing.

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 does add meaning by explaining the workspace identifier formats (id, name, org-qualified name) that this tool's output feeds into, which is useful context even though there is no input to document.

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 — 'List the workspaces you have access to (id and name)' — and immediately scopes what is returned. No sibling in the list does workspace enumeration, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 says when to use it: 'Use it to find the right value for the `workspace` argument of the trace, metrics and alert tools.' It even explains the three acceptable forms of that argument, removing any guesswork about downstream usage.

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