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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by explaining that these IDs are valid as move_recordings destinations and as the workspaceId filter — downstream semantics the annotations cannot convey. It does not mention pagination behavior despite limit/cursor existing.

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 short sentences with no filler: identity and return shape first, scope disambiguation second, downstream ID usage last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is paging behavior for limit/cursor, which an agent may need to enumerate more than the default 50 workspaces.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both parameters (limit with min/max/default, cursor) are undocumented, and the description says nothing about pagination, page size, or how to resume with a cursor. With two params carrying zero schema documentation, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ('Lists the user's personal Kalima workspaces') plus what is returned ('with IDs and names'). It also explicitly separates the resource from similar-sounding siblings: 'not organizations or teams', which matters given list_organizations and list_teams exist.

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?

Provides a natural-language trigger example ('welche Arbeitsbereiche habe ich') and rules out the organization/team siblings, so the agent knows which list tool to pick. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming the alternatives directly, but the disambiguation is clear.

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