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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (id, role, default workspace), which no annotation conveys. It doesn't cover edge cases such as what an empty list means for permissions, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns and then how to act on it. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so explicitly (id, role, default workspace). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds useful cross-tool context by explaining that a returned id is passed as the 'workspace' argument of other tools, which helps the agent wire the output into sibling calls.

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 names the resource (HelpWell workspaces available to this connection) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: id, the person's role, and the default workspace used when none is named. That distinguishes it from get_workspace_settings and update_workspace_settings, which operate on a single workspace's settings rather than enumerating workspaces. The listing verb is only implied rather than stated outright, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 a clear action tied to the result: 'When there are several, pass an id as the workspace argument of any other tool to work in that workspace.' That tells the agent how to use the output in follow-up calls, which is the main decision this tool drives. It stops short of explicitly saying when to call this versus other discovery tools or stating any prerequisites.

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