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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the needsYou count is keyed to 'this key' and de-duplicates In review children under one parent. That aggregation rule is not derivable from schema or annotations. Pagination behavior for limit/cursor is not discussed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the needsYou explanation follows as a self-contained clause. The middle clause defining the count is dense but each part earns its place; no filler.

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-value enumeration isn't required, and the description helpfully explains the needsYou field anyway. However, for a paginated list tool the absence of any statement about paging (default page size, how to follow the cursor, whether all workspaces fit) leaves a real operational gap.

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 the two parameters (limit default 50 max 100, cursor with a numeric pattern) carry no documented meaning anywhere. The description never mentions paging, page size, or how to continue with a cursor, which is the main gap an agent faces when calling it.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List accessible workspaces') and immediately scopes what each entry carries (role, audience, operation capabilities). It's clearly distinct from mutation siblings like workspace_create/workspace_update, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with workspace_show or workspace_load.

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?

Gives concrete routing for follow-up actions: find pending decisions via task_list reviewer=me and act via task_decide. It does not say when to prefer workspace_list over workspace_show or workspace_load, so the listing-choice guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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