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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: results are filtered by connection restrictions, permission values are computed from person setting × role × plan, and permission is null when only some workspaces are allowed. That null-on-partial-access rule is exactly the kind of edge case an agent would otherwise misread as 'no access'.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but everything after it is one dense run-on paragraph mixing permission semantics, access filtering, and brandPalette. The trailing brandPalette/infographic sentence is niche and would read better as a separate note; the parenthetical permission glossary is valuable but buried mid-sentence.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does — organizations, workspaces, role, plan, permissions, brandPalette. The remaining gap is structural: it never states that workspaces are nested under organizations, which matters for parsing a nested payload.

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 and there is nothing further to document. The description instead spends its space on the return payload, which is the right trade-off 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the organizations this connection can use, with your role, the plan, and their workspaces.' No sibling tool (list_diagrams, get_canvas, etc.) overlaps with this scope, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explains when items are absent ('access.mode "restricted"' hides organizations), which is result semantics rather than call guidance. It never says when an agent should reach for this tool — e.g. to discover an organization before create_diagram or compose_diagram — so usage is only implied.

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