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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the description is free to add the non-obvious constraint that the active workspace is fixed by the session token and cannot be changed via this tool. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about result size or format.

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 sentences: the first defines the operation and its return contents, the second delivers the session-pinning caveat. Nothing is redundant and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so at the field level (role, active/owned). What remains unstated is the response shape (list vs. envelope) and whether results are paginated, which is minor for a small, parameterless 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 every workspace the caller belongs to') and also specifies what each entry carries (role, active/owned flag). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_users or whoami, which address different resources.

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?

The second sentence gives real operational context: the connector acts in the workspace pinned in the session token, and switching requires re-authentication. That tells the agent when this tool's output cannot be acted on directly, though it does not name an explicit alternative tool.

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