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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: archived workspaces are frozen and every tool refuses there until an owner restores them, and all other tools operate only within the active workspace. These are substantive operational constraints that an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint alone.

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 description is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then lists the relevant fields efficiently. It is somewhat dense and run-on due to the long em-dash enumeration, but every clause contributes useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return contents and does so thoroughly. It also explains the active-workspace model and archived-workspace refusal behavior, making it complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema cannot add meaning and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on return fields rather than inventing parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('List the workspaces') and enumerates exactly what is returned: id, name, role, plan, connector usability, write/spend settings, archive state, coveredBy, and active workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from unrelated siblings such as list_clients or 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?

It provides useful context that every other tool reads and writes only the active workspace, and that switch_workspace changes it, which implicitly tells an agent when to consult this list. It does not explicitly state exclusions or a full when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of the top score.

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