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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety bar is low. The description still adds material behavioral context: result ordering, the inheritance rule that a sub-space also reads its parents' pinned docs and elements, and the meaning of the scope field (team vs personal visibility). It omits pagination behavior and how next_cursor interacts with ordering, which keeps it below 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 the tool returns before explaining field semantics and the filter. Every sentence carries information; the only weakness is that the core list action is never stated as a verb and the field glossary-style sentences read slightly dense.

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 output schema and only two optional parameters, the description does the right extra work by explaining what path and scope mean in returned results. The remaining gaps are the unaddressed distinction from the singular list_space sibling and no mention of how paging interacts with the "most recently active first" ordering.

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 both query and cursor are already documented in the schema, including the match rule ("any word matches, most words first"). The description's "find one by name" is a mild reframing that adds intent but not new mechanics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names the resource (spaces), constrains scope ("in the connected workspace this user can open"), and states ordering ("most recently active first"), which is enough for an agent to know what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tool list_space (singular), leaving that ambiguity unaddressed.

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?

"Pass query to find one by name" gives a concrete condition for using the filter, which is real if minimal guidance. There is no statement of when to choose list_spaces over list_space or list_elements, and no exclusions or preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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