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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: connection ownership, workspace scope, personal vs team kind, caller role, the older single-workspace note, and the refusal rule for writes without workspace_id. No contradictions with 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?

The description is dense and somewhat long, but every sentence earns its place: scope, entry fields, usage guidance, and edge-case note. The main verb and resource are front-loaded; the later sentences provide necessary detail rather than filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the result entries contain, how to use the result, what omitting the parameter means, and the special older-connection note. An agent has enough to call this correctly and decide when to pass workspace_id onward.

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% and the schema already explains workspace_id thoroughly, including when it is required and what happens when omitted. The description reinforces this read/write nuance but does not materially add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

First sentence names the specific operation ('List the workspaces') and the resource ('this connection can act in'). It then defines exactly what each entry containsholistic and distinguishes workspace listing from sibling site/folder/allowlist tools without needing to open any 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?

The description clearly says the returned workspace_id should be passed to other tools trickles and explains when to omit it on reads and why writes fail without it on multi-workspace connections. It doesn't name an alternative tool to choose instead, but none is truly needed for this foundational listing operation.

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