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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral fact that q is treated literally rather than semantically, and that the tool has a public-discovery vs. membership mode. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is a single tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main use case and packs the mode toggle and search hint into a few words, earning its place without 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 non-destructive list operation with a rich schema covering pagination, detail levels, and filters, and with no required parameters, the description gives adequate high-level orientation. It could mention return content or explicitly point to alternatives, but the schema carries most invocation detail.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description echoes mine=true and calls q 'literal,' but the schema already says 'literal substring' for memory and gives search constraints, so the description adds little beyond what is in the schema.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Discover public spaces or your memberships' with a filter condition ('mine=true') and an optional search hint ('optional literal q'). It identifies the resource (spaces) and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_space or search.

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 implies when to use the tool—to browse public spaces or, with mine=true, to browse memberships. It gives a conditional but does not state when to prefer alternatives such as get_space, list_space_entries, or space_membership, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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