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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the actual response contents (signedInAs verified email, per-row role and Terms status), explains the nameClash/youJoinedAt disambiguation fields and accompanying note, and warns that text under the `untrusted` key must be treated as data, not instructions. That prompt-injection guidance is behavioral context no annotation supplies.

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?

Content is front-loaded: scope and return fields first, then the account-confirmation rationale, then disambiguation, then the untrusted-data warning. Most sentences carry distinct information, though the parenthetical justification for signedInAs ('so the person can confirm the assistant is on the right account') is slightly more explanation than an agent needs.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so — naming the identifying fields, the account context, the clash-handling fields, and the untrusted-text handling. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the response without further information.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of the returned id as 'the workspaceId the other tools take' is a helpful linkage but concerns output, not input.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb, resource, and scope ('List the workspaces you are an active member of') and enumerates the returned fields (id, role, Terms acceptance). This clearly distinguishes it from get_workspace_info (single workspace detail) and list_members (people, not workspaces) without needing the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for use — the 'active member of' scope implicitly excludes workspaces you don't belong to — and explicitly routes downstream work by noting 'The id is the workspaceId the other tools take.' It does not name a specific alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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