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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token-scoping behavior and that it takes no arguments, but does not elaborate on return format beyond ids, pagination, empty states, or explicit read-only nature (though 'List' implies it). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then a zero-argument confirmation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple zero-argument list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what it returns (workspaces with ids), why it matters (prerequisite for other tools), and that it takes no arguments. Minor gaps like pagination or error cases are not critical here.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'Takes no arguments', confirming there is nothing further to document.

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 description states a specific verb (List) and resource (workspaces/tenants) with the access scope (your token can access) and the return content (their ids). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the prerequisite entry point that provides tenantId for other tools.

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 'Call this FIRST' and explains why: the returned tenant id is the `tenantId` argument needed by other tools like list_sites and search. This leaves no ambiguity about when and why to invoke it.

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