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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context the annotations cannot: a connection is bound to exactly one founder-chosen workspace, which is the key constraint on this call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint. The first and second sentences partially overlap in restating that the connection sees one workspace, so there is minor redundancy, but nothing wasteful.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain the return shape, and annotations cover safety. The description's main job — resolving the plural name 'list_workspaces' against the reality of a single connected workspace — is handled, leaving little missing for a zero-parameter read.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 resource (the connected WhichPost workspace) and enumerates what is returned: name, report count, and newest-report link. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_campaigns or about_whichpost, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish it in practice.

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 explains the connection model (one workspace, chosen at connect time) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as about_whichpost for account-level context. The agent must infer when to call it.

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