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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: email visibility is conditional on the caller being in the same org, and it returns only principals with explicit access (not inherited). This goes beyond the input schema and helps the agent understand edge cases. It does not mention required permissions or error handling, but the provided details are meaningful.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core function and return details, the second adds a practical use case. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers return structure, field visibility, roles, and intended use. It could mention potential errors or required permissions, but it is quite complete given the tool's simplicity. The output format is inferred, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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?

The schema already describes the 'slug' parameter with 100% coverage, including both accepted forms. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states it lists principals with explicit access to a workspace, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspaces or get_workspace. It enumerates the returned data (users and agents) and roles, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides a clear context: used by agents to verify a workspace is shared before writing output. This implies when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions. The use case is specific enough to guide selection among sibling tools such as share_workspace or get_workspace.

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