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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing that results are permission-scoped ('every workspace this connection can currently access') and by enumerating the returned metadata fields, which annotations do not convey.

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, zero filler, with the returned-field list and the usage restriction each doing distinct work. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns) is front-loaded before the routing caveat.

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, annotated, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope of results, returned fields, and the condition under which calling it is warranted. Nothing material is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or pagination inputs are needed ('List every workspace'), which is consistent with the empty 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspace'), and enumerates what each entry contains (names, slugs, roles, timezone metadata). It also distinguishes its scope from adjacent sibling list_accounts by noting that resource and account IDs resolve their own workspace, so the agent can tell this is the workspace-level enumerator rather than an account-level one.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('only when a workspace-wide operation is ambiguous') and a when-not condition (resource and account IDs resolve their workspace automatically). It does not name a specific alternative tool, which keeps it just short of a full 5, but the usage boundary is unambiguous.

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