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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior the annotations cannot convey: the connection reaches ALL workspaces you are a member of, newly invited workspaces appear automatically with no new credentials or MCP servers, and the `default` flag means the credential's workspace used when none is specified.

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 front-loaded sentences: what is listed, why the scope is broad, then how other tools resolve workspaces. The third sentence is slightly tangential for a pure list tool but earns its place by clarifying default-workspace behavior used by sibling listing tools.

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, the description still names the returned fields, and it covers scoping, the default-workspace semantics, and the auto-membership behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this zero-parameter read tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description's field list (id, nombre, slug, rol, default) describes outputs rather than inputs, but nothing is missing on the input side.

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 (Lista) and resource (workspaces) plus the exact scope: the workspaces reachable by this connection. It even enumerates the returned fields (id, nombre, slug, rol, default), so an agent knows what it gets without opening a schema that has no parameters.

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?

Explains the operational context clearly: entity-id tools (get_issue, add_comment) infer their workspace from the entity, while listing tools fall back to the default workspace. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearest siblings (workspace_stats, account_overview), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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