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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds the return shape (which fields come back per integration) plus the "enabled (or available)" nuance, which is useful since there is no output schema; it stops short of noting pagination or auth requirements.

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, with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded and the routing hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully compensates by naming the fields returned, and the read-only nature is fully covered by annotations. It leaves the in_workspace parameter entirely to the schema and says nothing about result limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 both agent_id and in_workspace are already documented, and in_workspace's non-persistent behavior is spelled out in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the implicit scoping to a single agent, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("List the workspace integrations enabled (or available) for an AI agent") and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (workspace_integration_id, provider, enabled flag, denied-tool count). It also names the sibling it complements (agents_set_integration), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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 states the use case explicitly ("Use this to see what an agent can call") and points at the alternative action ("before toggling with agents_set_integration"), making the read-then-write pairing unambiguous. Nothing about when to reach for this vs. the setter is left to inference.

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