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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that the returned workspace fields are id and name, which is useful because there is no output schema; it does not cover ordering or pagination, but those are minor for a simple account-level list.

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 definition is short, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence contributes useful context. The trailing 'Arguments: {}' is slightly redundant but harmless and reinforces that no arguments are needed.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough return-value detail by naming id and name. It could mention whether all workspaces are returned or how ordering works, but the simple account-level scope makes the current definition largely complete.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms this with 'Arguments: {}' but adds no further parameter detail, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 specific verb and resource: list the workspaces (clients) of the account. It also clarifies that each person or brand has its own workspace, which distinguishes this from kelpo_list_people and related catalog tools.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: reuse an existing workspace from this list, or create one with kelpo_create_client. That gives a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-create-client decision point.

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