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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description is free to add real behavioral context — and it does: pagination is one page at a time with a total for 'shown out of how many', the latest Diagnostic may be running or failed, unscored clients sort last, and the two item counts exclude competitor/research/prospect Diagnostics while noting list_action_items still returns them.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information, but the body is a single dense run-on covering rows, sorts, filters and plan gating with no visual separation, forcing the agent to parse clauses rather than sections. The sort list duplicates the schema enum verbatim, which costs space without adding meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values and it does so field by field, including the caveat that the Diagnostic may be in-flight or failed and the precise definition of each open-item count. For a nine-parameter, paginated list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the bulk of parameter meaning; the description still adds value by stating that in the score and date sorts a client with no Diagnostic or score comes last, and that pillar narrows both the critical/high count and min_open_high_priority_items to that area. The sort and pillar additions go slightly beyond the enum text, but most of the rest restates what the schema already says.

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 and resource plus the exact scope: 'Lists the client workspaces of the connected team account (brand workspaces on Business Enterprise), one page at a time.' It then enumerates the per-row payload (client_id, name, website, latest Diagnostic, MIDAS score and tier, action-item counts, next Diagnostic), which unambiguously separates it from list_action_items, list_diagnostics and get_portfolio_changes.

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?

States concrete fit scenarios ('which clients need attention', ranking clients, finding a client_id by name) and explicitly routes to the downstream tools that consume the result: list_action_items and list_diagnostics. It also states the plan gate (Agency, Business Enterprise, custom) and clarifies that an empty page means no match rather than no workspaces — a real usage trap.

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