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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: what each result contains (role, default workspace) and the important caveat that choosing a workspace for a task does not alter account defaults.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what is returned. The second sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by preempting a likely misreading about side effects.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, and the description covers the shape of results at a high level. However, pagination semantics for the two required parameters are covered nowhere, leaving a real gap for a list tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and both limit and offset are required, yet the description says nothing about pagination, page size bounds (max 50), or how to page through results. For a 2-parameter paginated list, the description should compensate and does not.

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+resource (list workspaces) and adds scope detail: only workspaces the connected user belongs to, returned with role and default workspace. It's clearly distinct from sibling list tools like projects_list or media_folders_list, though it doesn't explicitly name a counterpart it could be confused with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus looking up a single workspace (e.g., workspace_context_get), nor prerequisites. The sentence about selecting a workspace not changing account defaults is a side-effect clarification, not a when-to-use statement.

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