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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail the annotations do not: the 'unavailable' workspace refusal, the distinction between writeAccess.allowed vs canCreateOrUpdate vs canDelete, and the instruction not to name scopes to the user. It also flags CRM field values as untrusted content.

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?

Front-loaded with the core return statement, and dense with actionable rules rather than fluff. It is long, but each sentence carries gate/error-handling logic an agent needs; only slightly verbose relative to what an identity tool strictly requires.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates every relevant return field (workspaceCount, workspaces, writeAccess, crmAccess, adminAccess) and the correct agent behavior for each. For a no-output-schema gate tool, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: workspaceId is required only when the connection spans multiple workspaces, and passing it yields a single workspace's full report. That is meaning beyond the schema's type/length constraints.

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 precise verb+resource: returns the acting member, covered workspaces, effective scopes, write capability, and the member's permission matrix. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_member_access or get_permission_catalogue, which expose narrower slices.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first' and provides concrete conditional routing: when workspaceCount > 1 pass workspaceId, and when crmAccess/adminAccess.allowed is false, repeat the message instead of retrying or calling admin tools. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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