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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context: pagination continuation via has_more, the fact that the call has a side-effect-free relationship to Personal Space, and membership consumption rules for agents and pending invitations.

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 purpose is front-loaded well, but later sentences are dense and somewhat disjointed ('legacy migration outcome', 'ask the existing Space owner') without clear connection to invoking this tool, weakening the structure.

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 values need not be explained, but with two completely undocumented parameters and only partial pagination guidance, the description leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% for limit and cursor, so the description carries the burden. It hints at cursor-based pagination through 'has_more' but never explains the limit range, cursor format, or interaction between the two, leaving most semantics undocumented.

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 with scope qualifiers: 'List currently visible accepted private Spaces for your signed-in account.' This clearly distinguishes the account-scoped private listing from siblings like private_space_get or public_space_list, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Adds a negative usage cue ('this read does not create a Personal Space') and pagination instruction ('Continue while has_more is true'), but the caveat about empty lists and hosts is oblique and no clear routing to alternatives is given.

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