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

Annotations already mark readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world; the description adds operational behavior: one entry per workspace with role/permissions/default/current, fallback to the current workspace when workspaceId is omitted, and API-key single-workspace scope. It also states 'Takes no arguments'.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by return shape, usage, fallback, and API-key caveat. Mostly earns its place, though the return-field enumeration is partially redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

Complete for a zero-argument read tool: usage routing, workspaceId implications, API-key scope, and return structure are all covered. Output schema handles return details, and annotations cover safety.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description correctly confirms no arguments and does not need to add parameter details because none exist.

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?

Specific verb 'List' and resource 'workspaces', with scope 'this sign-in can act in, across every organization the user belongs to'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools such as list_websites by focusing on workspace/organization context.

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?

Explicitly says when to call: when the user names a workspace, client or organization, or when expected data is missing. It also routes the agent to pass the matching id as workspaceId to other tools and explains the fallback when workspaceId is absent.

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