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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the auth mechanism clearly (Bearer header in the connector, never pass keys as arguments) — genuinely useful operational context. It stops short of stating the read-only nature explicitly, pagination behavior, or result limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary outcome and followed by the auth constraint. Nothing is redundant with structured fields.

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 no input params and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (role, pass expiry, member count, last message number) and how authentication works. The main remaining gap is any note on read-only semantics or result size.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It describes return fields rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.

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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource (the spaces you belong to), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the 'you belong to' scoping already separates it from read_space or space_members.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating its own memberships. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative (e.g. space_members for someone else's space) and no exclusion guidance.

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