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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of each returned record (id, name, people, flows, folders, sidebar count, last activity), which matters since there is no output schema. Pagination or result-size behavior is not mentioned.

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 sentences, no filler. The definition of the resource comes first, the returned fields second, and the routing hint last — front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to reach for it, and the schema covers archived filtering and workspace resolution. Only result-volume/pagination expectations are left unaddressed.

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% and both parameters (workspace, includeArchived) are fully documented in the schema, including the personal-token edge case. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (rooms), what a room is conceptually ('where groups of people work together with the assistant and flows'), and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this list operation from rooms_read and rooms_post without opening 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?

Explicitly says to use it to resolve which room a user means before calling rooms_read or rooms_post, naming the alternatives. It omits when *not* to use it — notably that rooms_search exists for keyword-based lookup rather than full enumeration.

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