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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context that annotations cannot: any other tool operates solely on the key-bound workspace, and cross-workspace work requires a different credential. It does not discuss pagination or list-size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what comes back, followed by the constraint and the alternative. No filler or restated title.

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, but the description names every returned field (id, name, icon, creation date, isCurrent), so the agent knows what it will get. For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs, and it usefully documents the shape of the returned items instead.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the workspaces owned by the account behind the API key') and specifies the exact scope (main workspace plus sub-workspaces). It even enumerates the returned fields and the meaning of isCurrent, so an agent can distinguish it from get_workspace_details and create_workspace without opening a schema.

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 states the cross-cutting constraint that every other tool acts on the current workspace only, and names the alternative path (connect with that workspace's own key, minted by create_workspace_api_key). This is when-to-use and when-you-need-something-else guidance in one place.

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