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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the cross-workspace visibility model and the fact that list_sites is scoped to a single workspace, which explains the tool's role in the discovery workflow.

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 what the tool returns, then the use condition, then the hand-off. No filler; every sentence carries actionable content.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned, when to reach for it, and how its output feeds list_sites.

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 the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The mention of org_id refers to a parameter consumed by list_sites, not this tool, so it does not add parameter meaning here.

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 — lists the workspaces (organizations) you belong to — and enriches it with what each entry contains (your role, brand count). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_sites by naming both the relationship and the workspace-scoping model.

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 an explicit triggering condition ('call this first whenever an expected brand is missing from list_sites') and explains why the sibling misses it (shared brands live in the owner's workspace; list_sites shows one workspace at a time). It also states the follow-up action: pass the org_id into list_sites.

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