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

The description explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'changes nothing', which reinforces the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It adds useful context about token-scoped accessibility, but with annotations already covering the safety profile, the additional behavioral disclosure is modest.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The most important behavioral trait ('READ-ONLY') is front-loaded, and the rest states the core action and scope efficiently.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential context: read-only behavior, no mutation, and token-scoped accessibility. It does not need to explain return values or parameters because those are fully specified in structured fields.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters including pagination, filtering, detail level, and include_deleted. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces accessible to this token'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes the tool from document-focused siblings by scoping to workspaces and token accessibility.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to enumerate workspaces available to the current token. There are no competing workspace-list siblings, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary, though it could have stated that this is the discovery entry point for workspace IDs.

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