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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds non-obvious behavior: results are scoped to the caller's memberships and include the caller's role per workspace, which matters when picking the right workspace. No pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, then what a workspace is, then the usage trigger. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 saying what comes back, and it does: workspaces plus the user's role, and implicitly their IDs via the workspace_id reference. It could name other returned fields (name, connection count) but is sufficient for an agent to call it and use the result.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that the call takes no arguments and that the useful output key is workspace_id.

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?

Specific verb+resource: lists workspaces, scoped to those the authenticated user is a member of, and states the returned attribute (role). It also explains what a workspace contains, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_organizations or list_platform_connections.

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?

"Use this to resolve a workspace_id before calling other tools that need one" gives an explicit trigger and sequencing hint, which is exactly what an agent needs for an ID-resolver tool. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against list_organizations / list_workspace_people, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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