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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'READ-ONLY. Returns data, changes nothing.' largely restates structured data. The one piece of added value is the token-scoping phrase 'accessible to this token,' which hints at permission-filtered results, but pagination, deleted-item handling and result shape are left to schema/annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its safety profile. It is compact, though the first two sentences duplicate each other and the annotations, so a small amount of space is not earning its place.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema coverage across nine parameters, the description need not explain return values. However, it offers no guidance on how the listing behaves (pagination defaults, filtering combinations) and duplicates annotation content instead of filling the usage gap, leaving it only minimally complete.

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% and all nine parameters (skip/take aliases, limit/offset, query/search, detail_level, workspace_id, include_deleted) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List workspaces accessible to this token.' An agent immediately knows this is a listing/read operation on workspaces. It does not, however, differentiate from any sibling (though none of the listed siblings are workspace-listers, so the risk is low).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions under which this tool should be preferred over, e.g., po_mcp_tools_search. 'READ-ONLY. Returns data, changes nothing.' is a safety statement, not usage guidance.

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