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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that archived surfaces are hidden by default, that order matches the on-screen tab strip, and that workspaces can contain a mix of table and doc surfaces. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior, but 'list' plus the enumerative detail make the behavior 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?

Four tightly crafted sentences front-load the purpose, then efficiently cover surface types, slug usage, ordering, and archived filtering. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what is returned (surfaces with types and slugs), the ordering, and the default filtering, making the tool's behavior predictable without needing a separate output contract.

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%: both 'slug' and 'archived' are already fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the surfaces (tabs) inside a workspace') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like create_surface, update_surface, and delete_surface. It also clarifies the table/doc surface types, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by noting that each surface has its own slug used in surface-scoped tool calls, implying this tool is the way to enumerate surfaces before operating on them. It also explains the default archived behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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