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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add permission-based scoping ("the caller can view") and confirms page counts are returned, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering for a list call.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the enumeration scope is front-loaded and the identifier hint follows. Nothing could be removed without losing 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, and the description usefully compensates by stating that each entry carries a page count and a `key` field suitable for follow-up calls. Pagination and volume characteristics are the remaining gap for a list tool, but overall it is sufficient to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `account` and `workspace` are fully documented in the schema itself (including the ACCOUNT_REQUIRED failure mode). The description mentions "current workspace" only obliquely and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List wiki spaces") plus a scope constraint ("the caller can view in the current workspace") and the shape of each item (page count). It implicitly separates itself from wiki_get_space / wiki_get_space_with_pages by being the enumeration call, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The second sentence gives useful downstream guidance (use `key` as the space identifier in follow-up wiki calls), but that is guidance about using the output, not about when to pick this tool over wiki_get_space or wiki_list_pages. No explicit when-not or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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