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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: with an sb_* token the result narrows to only the token-linked workspace, which an agent could not infer from annotations. No pagination or result-size notes.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the token-scoping caveat and then the intended use case in priority order.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping behavior, and what the response contains (role and configuration). It is nearly complete; a note on whether results are filtered by permissions or limited in count would close the remaining 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?

Zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The schema coverage is 100% on an empty object, so nothing is missing.

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 ('Lista los workspaces del usuario') and adds the payload detail (rol y configuración). The closing clause about getting an unknown workspace_id implicitly separates it from get_workspace, which requires already knowing the id.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: use this to obtain the workspace_id when it is not known. It also explains the sb_* token variant's behavior, but never names an explicit alternative (e.g. get_workspace singular) or a when-not condition.

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