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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: archived workspaces are frozen and every tool refuses there until an owner restores it, and the connector acts in only one workspace. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with the correct verb+resource, but the middle is a single em-dash chain of six nested clauses that is heavy to parse. No sentence is wasted, yet the structure is more tangled than it needs to be.

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, the description must explain what comes back, and it does — down to the coveredBy billing relationship and the frozen-workspace semantics. An agent has everything it needs to call and interpret this tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description instead characterizes the returned fields (role, plan, connector availability, write/AI-spend flags, archived state, coveredBy billing), which is genuinely useful detail rather than parameter guidance.

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+resource ('List the workspaces your account belongs to') and enumerates the returned fields, making clear it is the enumerating tool rather than the switching tool. The agent can instantly tell it apart from switch_workspace.

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 names the alternative: 'Use switch_workspace to change it,' and establishes the operating context that 'every other tool reads and writes only in the active workspace,' so the agent knows why and when to call this.

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