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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses auth-scoped behavior: a flow_ws_ token lists only its own workspace, a flow_ token fails here with a 400, and omitting workspaceId silently changes what other tools target. Those are non-obvious behavioral traits that annotations do not cover.

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 purpose, then routing, then edge cases. Every sentence carries information, though the enumeration of return fields is partly redundant given the output schema exists.

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-arg, multi-tenant discovery tool this covers purpose, routing, token/scope edge cases, and error behavior. An output schema exists, so the return-shape sentence is a bonus rather than a necessity, and nothing an agent needs to call 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 reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments', and the semantics it does explain (workspaceId consumed by other tools) are about other tools rather than this one's inputs.

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 and resource ('List the workspaces this sign-in can act in') plus scope ('across every organization the user belongs to'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_websites and the metric getters.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('when the user names a workspace, client or organization, or when data they expect is missing'), the downstream action ('pass the matching id as workspaceId to every other tool'), and the fallback semantics when workspaceId is omitted (tools act in the 'current' workspace). This is genuine routing guidance.

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