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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals authentication requirements, the account scoping, and the two key pieces of returned information. For a parameterless list operation, this is sufficient; pagination and error behavior are not documented but are not critical here.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in the essential scope, output details, and authentication requirement. No words are wasted.

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 simple parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the required auth headerable, the scoped resource, and the meaningful return values. It does not specify exact field types or pagination, but nothing prevents an agent from invoking and understanding the result correctly.

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 schema has zero parametershare, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description usefully focuses on the output fields rather than parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('list'), the resource ('client workspaces'), and the account scope. It also differentiates itself from sibling list tools by specifying the returned id and the brand-profile readiness flag for a May run.

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 description gives useful context: the returned id is what other tools needable for subsequent calls, and the brand-profile readiness flag relates to a May run. It also notes the required X-Mako-Key header, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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