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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is free to spend its words on domain semantics. It does that well: one workspace per company, shared with that company's team, a guaranteed personal workspace, and the waiting_to_join field for pending join requests — all context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loads what the tool returns and which workspace is current, then layers background in descending importance. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the 'shared with that company's team' clause is arguably decorative.

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 input params, no output schema, and a fully covered read-only annotation profile, this description fills both remaining gaps: the domain model and the shape of the returned data (company domain, logo, waiting_to_join). The only omission is an explicit pointer to switch_workspace as the follow-on action.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter guidance because none 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?

"Your AyHire workspaces and which one is current" states the resource and the scope (the caller's own workspaces, one flagged current), which distinguishes it from list_workspace_members and from switch_workspace. It is phrased as a noun clause rather than a verb+resource, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: knowing which workspace is current is obviously a precondition for switch_workspace, but that sibling is never named, nor are create_workspace or invite_to_workspace excluded. An agent can infer the context but gets no explicit routing.

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