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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the response fields and an important scope caveat — the personal workspace is never returned. Ordering and behavior when the caller belongs to zero workspaces remain unstated.

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, front-loaded with the core list action and the switch_workspace ordering cue, with the scope caveat last. The only wasted material is "Read-only," which merely repeats readOnlyHint from the annotations.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows what it will get. Combined with the personal-workspace exclusion and the switch_workspace sequencing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 tool takes no parameters, and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the company workspaces the caller belongs to") and even previews the returned fields (id, name, role, active flag). This clearly separates it from switch_workspace, which acts on a chosen workspace rather than enumerating them.

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 phrase "Use before switch_workspace" gives explicit sequencing guidance tied to a named sibling, which is exactly what an agent needs for a discovery step. It does not say when this tool is unnecessary (e.g., when the workspace id is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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