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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The one piece of added value is the statement that the returned id routes content to that exact workspace, which helps the agent understand why the call matters, but there is no note on auth scope limits or whether the list can be paginated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then the reason the result matters. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers what is returned and why it is useful. It stops short of clarifying the auxiliary query/brand_id parameters, which is the only real gap.

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 67% and the description does add meaning for workspace_id by explaining the routing effect of the value. However, the other two parameters (query, brand_id) get no mention, and brand_id is entirely undocumented in both places.

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 the workspaces'), scopes it precisely ('this API key can access'), and even states what is returned ('with their ids'). It is clearly distinguishable from aidelly_get_workspace (single) and aidelly_list_workspace_members.

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?

Explains the downstream purpose of the result: the id is 'the workspace_id other tools take, which directs content to that exact workspace.' That tells an agent when this tool is the right starting point, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with aidelly_get_workspace or aidelly_list_workspace_members.

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